The perception of whether Maliki has strengthened or been weakened may be quite different in Iraq from in the US. And there has been a long history in the Middle East of one side being crushed but then declaring success because it simply survives. What I have not seen is any evidence that Sadr's forces have more not less freedom of action or are more powerful vice the ISF.

My sense is neither side had a home run and both will declare victory. Both got chewed but Maliki has shown he can & will decide to go on the offensive when it suits him. I sense this wasn't intended simply for Sadr alone but also to signal to both the US and Iran that he's now more independent.

The stuff I am reading out of Iraq has a completely different take than the view from the Upper West Side. A unilateral cease fire due to significant losses, lack of supplies and dismal moral doesn't look good for the Mahdi army.

Do you disagree with these observations? If they’re correct, isn’t their implication that the Maliki government was, overall, successful in Basra?

I don't know where the 18% figure comes from or, indeed, if anyone knows how large the Madhi Army is. It's news to me, too, that "The Iraqi Army now controls the territory formerly controlled by the Mahdi Militia." I haven't seen any other reports to that effect.

More simply, though, I define "success" in military operations by whether the initiator of hostilities achieved their political objectives. I don't see how Maliki did that. He's generally perceived to have weakened, not strengthened, his position.

It was Sadr who called for the truce, made the Mahdi Militia's surrender conditional, then surrendered anyway even when the conditions were not met by the Iraqi government;

The Iraqi Army now controls the territory formerly controlled by the Mahdi Militia;

The army has continued operational tempo, while the militia is in hiding, its leader afraid to show his face in public (in Iraq, at least);

The militia suffered a loss of at least 18% of its total southern force with another 30% wounded;

The most that critics of the war can say is that Sadr "won" by virtue of not being killed (wherever he is) and because his Mahdi Militia was not utterly annihilated and have not utterly repudiated him.

Do you disagree with these observations? If they're correct, isn't their implication that the Maliki government was, overall, successful in Basra?

"From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check. Furthermore, all children under 16 years old are now... 16 years old!"

When we see him wearing military fatigues, we'll know the game is over.

But hey, the surge rocks!