You are missing the point, probably willfully.
The battle is real. The recent change in the US military's tactic -- concentrating more on regaining Baghdad ("Saying the security situation in Baghdad remained ''terrible,'' President Bush announced an agreement with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki on Tuesday to significantly strengthen the United States military presence in the city" [Jim Rutenberg, David E. Sanger, Kate Zernike, Kirk Semple, and Edward Wong, "Baghdad Chaos Pushes Bush to Shift U.S. Troops," 26 July 2006, <http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B13FB3E5B0C758EDDAE0894DE404482>]) -- is precisely to take on the Mahdi Army as a part of the Tel Aviv-Washington axis's Iran campaign (just like the Israeli invasion of Lebanon), and this is a result of that change.
The main problem for Iraqis, if they want to take back their country, is the US occupation, contrary to what the US media say.
Recently, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki floated an amnesty plan that initially included pardons for Iraqi guerrillas, including "pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops" (Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer, "Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S. Military: Leader Also Backs Talks With Resistance," Washington Post, 15 June 2006, A01, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061402432.html>).
But Washington, prompted by Democrats, scuttled the amnesty plan:
<blockquote>In Washington, Senate Democrats offered a resolution Thursday demanding that President Bush repudiate the amnesty proposal regarding those who attacked American forces.
"It is shocking that the Iraqi prime minister is reportedly considering granting amnesty to insurgents who have killed U.S. troops," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "On the day we lost the 2,500th soldier in Iraq, the mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom. I call on President Bush to denounce this proposal immediately." (llen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer, "Maliki Aide Who Discussed Amnesty Leaves Job: Premier Disavows Remarks; Egyptian Seen Replacing Zarqawi," Washington Post," 16 June 2006, A22, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501267.html>)</blockquote>
Since Maliki has no real authority derived from the truly popular mandate in Iraq, and he owes his position to Washington, he cannot do what it takes to end sectarian conflict and force the departure of the occupier.
A plan for national reconciliation, with amnesty for combatants and inclusion of guerrillas and militias into a national army, is the only way to prevent Iraq from descending into an Afghanistan for perpetuity, but, for such a plan to have a chance, it has to be offered by a real national liberation front that includes Shi'i, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders, independent of and willing to buck Washington. How such a national liberation front can emerge is the real political question in Iraq.
If Tehran can overcome its own sectarianism, it can broker an inter-faith/inter-ethnic deal -- and for that purpose, Moktada al-Sadr, who is an Arab born in Iraq, unlike Sistani who is Iranian-born and said to speak with a Persian accent, is the key -- but it is far from clear that it can. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>