In an essay entitled Which will go first
the current Iraqi government, or all hope of victory in Iraq?, Kelly lays out a view that coincides with that expressed by Peters' in a column entitled TERROR RULES STREETS.
Neither piece is a rehash of errors made or an assertion that the Iraq War was itself an error. Both men have reached the same conclusion that I have, which is that the current leadership in Iraq is so bad that democracy must fail as a result.
I do not believe that Maliki has "until Christmas" to resolve problems. I believe that his government will fall very quickly after November 7th. The last grains in the hourglass of Muqtada's life should fall before mid-November. Even then, it may turn out to have been two years too late. The President has spoken of change recently. I hope that the change which he forsees is based upon recognition that applying the force necessary to restore order, bloody as it may be, will be far kinder to the Iraqi people than leaving to the mercy of the muslim thugs contending for spoils by continuing to perfect their terror techniques.
UPDATE: Bill Roggio weighs in with some good reporting on a few other battles being waged between Sadr's Mahdi Army and (mostly) Iraqi security forces. He doesn't favor killing Sadr and believes that Maliki should have another chance. Very good reporting but I disagree with the conclusion. Maybe we could split the difference and just wound Sadr badly enough to leave him comatose?