Sadr dictating U.S. military actions?

Following up on Joe's post, the events surrounding the search for a kidnapped U.S. soldier in Iraq are disturbing. Those who closely follow Iraq already know that Prime Minister Maliki is deeply indebted to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has a tremendous populist following and also commands -- loosely -- the Mahdi Militia, but I think this is the first time that influence has exploded onto the national U.S. stage.

Iraq is run (and I'm using that word loosely, but bear with me) by Islamist Shia groups. The two most powerful parties are SCIRI and the Sadrists, the two Shia groups with the most parliamentary representatives. More importantly, each group has its own powerful armed group, SCIRI's Badr Corps and the aforementioned Mahdi Militia. Maliki was essentially a compromise, non-aligned choice, as neither group wanted a member of the other to be PM. Since his election, however, Maliki has been far more closely aligned with the priorities of Sadr than those of SCIRI (though both groups are fundamentalist).

With Sadr having a huge influence on policy as well as a militia that runs much of the country, including the vast Baghdad slum of Sadr City, which houses over 2 million of his followers, it was only a matter of time before U.S. policy went up against the rabidy anti-U.S. Sadrists.

This week, U.S. priorities appear to have lost, with Coalition forces pulling out of Sadr City after Sadr demanded a withdrawal and called for a general strike. We still have a missing soldier, which as far as I'm concerned is a national nightmare. It's hard for me to believe that before Sadr threw a tantrum it was important to look for the soldier in Sadr City -- but afterwards it wasn't.