Omar relates the words of Hussain Al-Sadr, a moderate cleric and cousin of Muqtada Al-Sadr: “In his words, Hussain stressed that there’s no place for armed militias in the new Iraq but there’s always a chance for everyone to participate in the political process.”

I disagree strongly with this. My main contention is that an overly broad brush has been used here, and it stems from the false belief that guns are central to the problem in Iraq. Allow me to quote from the U.S. Bill of Rights:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Point the first: A well regulated militia. The Mahdi militia is not well regulated. It’s debatable whether it’s regulated at all, with the recent break in the cease fire.

Point the second: The writers of the constitution of the U.S. clearly established that such a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I’m not going to argue the point; I’ll only say that there are several good reasons, no matter where you fall on the semantics of the second half of the amendment.

Perhaps I’m making too much out of this (likely out of context) statement. I hope so, anyway.