Well, that's coming from the guy who, it seems, just got around to admitting, weeks after the fact, that perhaps Basra wasn't Malaki's graveyard after all.

But then some Shia leaders are just more "authentic" than others, right?

Grasping at some rather distant straws now, aren't you?

Who? Challiss McDonough? No one cares about Basra, it was a sideshow. Are you confusing it with Sadr City?

Yet the "winner" is still hiding in exile. That's some "victory."

Hiding? He's in seminary. He's a religious leader, not a guerrilla.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22251566/

OK, so he's a "religious leader" who hasn't dared showed himself in public for about a year now. I am still not impressed.

But I'm old-fashioned in my preference for religious leaders whose followers aren't violent thugs who shoot at Americans, representatives of the elected government, and any civilians who get in the way.

I'm a bit confused. When has Iraqi PM Siniora ordered his Lebanese counterpart Maliki to attack Hezbollah ? Oh, I remember: blame Bush !

This site is just getting Sadr 'n Sadr....

And now: a tidbit from someone who at least has a clue.

See, AOG, just a matter of time until the neocons claimed it was a defeat for Hezbollah if only you read beneath the surface.

He's not trying to impress you. What do you matter? His ayatollah training impresses the Shi'a. They matter. MLK didn't go to seminary in the South, but he did liberate it.

I'm older fashioned, my religious leader came with a sword.

And that has what to do with Maliki? Your argument there has been reduced to ignoring facts ("who cares about Basra?") and using unrelated events (Lebanon).

I think this event is a victory for Hizb'allah, for the same reasons I think the recent events in Iraq were a loss for Sadr. In both cases there is a set of contested issues. The winner is the side that gained control of more of the issues. In Iraq, Maliki gained, and in Lebanon, Hizb'allah gained. Your criteria for victory seem to be "who is the most theocratically repressive actor?", regardless of facts on the ground.

You're getting there. What did Maliki gain by calling in America to cover his retreat? Why did he go to Basra and Mosul but not Sadr City? Just think it through, the Bright way, and comprehension will dawn.

It all depends what they use their swords for.

What retreat? Operations are continuing and the Mehdi Army's heavy weapons are being confiscated, regardless of any claims about "no disarmament". I suppose you'll be claiming the UK lost WWII because they had to call on the Americans to help out. Yet, somehow, they didn't end up a German protectorate.

Maliki went to Basra because that was the start of the campaign against the Mehdi. He went to Mosul because that was the start of the new campaign.

Actually, I have a better question: why did Hizb'allah retreat? Doesn't that mean, by your logic, that Hizb'allah lost?

Of course Great Britain lost WWII, that's undisputed. The Empire is gone and they became a third rate US protectorate. Niall Ferguson is excellent on the topic. Churchill hated Hitler more than he loved Great Britain.

Exaxctly! If Hezbollah's goal is to govern The Lebanon they lost. You're starting to get the hang of analysis.

Excellent, Papaya, a gold star for you too.

So, now you're one of those neocons claiming it was a defeat for Hizb'allah? I see.

It certainly is handy for analysis to completely ignore any previous statements or facts, and ignore any inconvenient to answer questions. I don't think I can get the hang of that, though.

Bingo! Hezbollah won less than they should have. Final victory is simply stated: statehood for the Shi'a South.

Good work. There's hope for you yet. Libertarianism may be characterized by short-term subjective emotion, but with practice you can learn to engage in such longer term thinking.

You've abandoned being a neo-con to switch back to claiming Hizb'allah won, just not as much as they should have?

It's truly hilarious to read about "long term thinking" from someone who changes stories faster than Obama in an unscripted interview.

No, Hezbollah won, they claimed less of a prize than they ought.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, I see why you've biffed the analysis so badly. Above I said it was a defeat to withdraw if Hezbollah's goal is to govern The Lebanon. You understand the situation so little you believe that is their goal?

Here's a really easy example that will help you to clarify your muddled thought: replace The Lebanon with the United States and Nasrallah with Lee.

Suppose that Lee took Washington and then withdrew after an agreement by the North to pull back its troops, but with no recognition of Southern sovereignty.

This would be a victory, but a smaller prize than he'd have been entitled to claim.

Why? Because the South sought only independence.

Suppose though that the South's goal was to govern the United States. Then it's a loss because he yielded territory integral to their ends.

You're simply confused about why Hezbollah exists, so you don't understand what they're fighting over.