Inevitable breach of cease fire

From MSNBC.com (with some of my own comments):

Cleric's militia battles coalition, leaving 16 dead
Al-Sadr calls for restoration of negotiated cease-fire
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr battled fiercely with U.S., British and Iraqi forces in four cities Thursday. A U.S. soldier, seven Iraqi civilians and seven militants were killed and a U.S. helicopter was shot down before al-Sadr called for a fragile cease-fire to be restored.

-- Uh... 1 US soldier + 7 civilians + 7 militants (or if you don't care to differentiate between the two: 14 Iraqi's) = 15. Headline say's 16. Whoopsie. --

Sheik Mahmoud Sudani, a spokesman for al-Sadr, said al-Sadr’s office had issued a statement saying he would observe the truce, which was agreed to in June to end a Shiite uprising that lasted several weeks.

Al-Sadr set a deadline of midnight for the end of fighting and the restoration of the cease-fire, said Ahmed al-Shaibany, another spokesman. If U.S. forces do not agree, “then the firing and igniting of the revolution will continue.”

The fighting started in the holy city of Najaf, where al-Sadr has his headquarters. Bloodshed quickly spread to other Shiite Muslim areas, with each side blaming the other. Al-Sadr’s men also fought with U.S. troops in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, wounding seven Americans; shot at government offices in the southern city of Amarah; and clashed with British forces in Basra, where one militant was killed.

In Najaf, a U.S. UH-1 helicopter was hit by gunfire and crashed, injuring the crew.

Iraqis said that at least seven militants and seven civilians had been killed and that 54 others had been wounded in the fighting. The U.S. command said insurgents attacked a U.S. convoy near Najaf, killing a U.S. soldier and wounding five others.

-- Okay, 15 dead by itself sounds like a small body count for a large battle. But the 54 injured changes it. First question: Who started it? Sadr's statement would make it sound like the U.S. forces did, but how does a military convoy constitute to a attack? Or did his people fire first and he doesn't want the U.S. military to take advantage of that to actually fight him and crush him.

It was only inevitable that this would happen -- a relapse in the fighting between Sadr's militia and the occupation forces when the U.S. pulled out of Fallujah earlier this year, and instead had the Iraqi's take over the "crackdown" efforts (when you know enough of them support the militia to allow it to continue to operate unabated) before a cease fire was arranged (and since then the bombing of a number of family residences by U.S. Air Forces suspected of being safehouses for an Al Qaeda commander). You do not leave an enemy to be a problem again someday, because they innevitably will, and it costs you the lives you didn't want to lose in the first place if not more.

Remember how we chose not to go into Baghdad in 91? The same argument applies here. But, things are not that clear cut by far in our world, unfortunately. It would have saved us 700 American lives at least in hindsight and who knows how many thousands of Iraqi civilians.