Zarqawi's surprising move

It is now clear that the Iraqi Police in Basra (were they Sadrist? Badrists? Both?) engaged in a shootout with British troops. Today, an adviser to Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari condemned the rescue operations conducted by the British to get their soldiers back from Iraqi police capture, Reuters.

That condemnation is even more fuel for this point raised by Professor Cole in his morning post:

The entire episode reeks of "dual sovereignty," in which there are two distinct sources of government authority. Social historian Charles Tilly says that dual sovereignty signals a revolutionary situation.

"Sovereignty" may be far more complex than just a question of two political poles. Followers of Moqtada al Sadr have battled both the United States' Marines and the Badr Brigade -- backed by Iran and a substantial faction of the current Iraqi government.

Yesterday, Abu Musab al Zarqawi drastically ended his call for jihad on all Shiites, now allowing for Sadrists to be protected Shiites.

That is correct: Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia will not intentionally attack Sadrists.

Is that because Sadrists have fought against the Western occupiers and the government that works and benefits -- to a certain extent -- from an alliance with the West?

Is that because the Sadrists have protested against the Iraqi constitution?

Is that because more secular Sunnis have been working with Zarqawi -- perhaps exerting a more pragmatic political/military set of objectives and alliances?

What does UBL think about Zarqawi's truce?

Was this a temporary truce or an alliance to disrupt the elections?

I do not believe the United States military anticipated this, nor did the government. I do not believe either American institution knows what is motivating this alliance. Our decision makers remain, as they have always been, in the dark about Iraq. That has not served us well in the past.