AP via Yahoo! News - Shiite Cleric Vows to Support Iraqi Gov't

Marginalized, radicalized, considered a thug and officially branded an outlaw by Ambassador Bremmer, Muqtada al-Sadr has found a "third-way." Despite the outgoing American head of the Coalition Authority's own fatwah against Sadr and his Militia being allowed to participate in the government for the next three years, Sadr has nonetheless decided to soften his opposition to the new government of Iraq.

The conciliatory tone by cleric Muqtada al-Sadr came during a sermon read by an aide to a congregation in Kufa, scene of recent fighting between his al-Mahdi Army militia and U.S. forces.
In the sermon, the fiery young cleric said "I support the new interim government" and asked his followers to "help me take this society to the path of security and peace."
"Starting now, I ask you that we open a new page for Iraq and for peace," the message said.

It would seem that there is hope yet for Iraq when even a radical Shiite leader can learn the necessity for compromise inherent in a democratic system.

Does this make him "weak" or undecicive. No! It makes him reasonable, pragmatice, willing to compromise absolutism for the greater good. You see, under the right circumstances, when all the facts are known, changing one's mind in accomodation to the realities of the situation and changing facts, is a sign of intelligence, thoughtfulness, resonableness.

A wishy-washy politician who changes his mind to stay in power, transforms into a statesman when he (or she) is pursuaded to compromise for the benefit of us all. To my way of thinking, a solution that leads to peace is always better than an stance designed to incite continued violence.

When supposedly religious men nonetheless incite violence, I reject both them and their screwed up version of religion. If Bush were truly a religious man, he would also be a man of peace and not just a zealous ideologue, and we would never have invaded Iraq. Likewise if Sadr were a truly religious man, and not an intolerant miscreant, he too would be a man of peace and would not even have a militia. I also believe that there is the capacity for redemption, but I have little faith that either Sadr or Bush will really become reasonable actors in this drama anytime soon, despite their words or even best intentions.

I have long since been pursuaded that John Kerry has acted like a statesman instead of a politician in modifying his position on more than one occasion that the Bush campaign delights in characterizing as his flip/flopping nature. I have yet to see any statesmanship from Shrub, although he has changed policies and consistently lowered expectations, I've never seen an instance where he did it because he belived it was the right thing to do.

Throughout his life, Kerry has made principled decisions, often at odds with popular opinion and his previous positions.

Bush changes his policies only when forced. I was pleased to see that an overwhelming number of people agreed with this sentiment that he was "too ideological and stubborn." If a violent religious zealot who never lived in a free, democratic environment can understand instinctively the value of compromise, why can't Shrub?

And how dare he attempt to lable those who can work within the system to gain acceptable results as somehow unworthy of leadership. Give me a leader who can get things done, pragmatically over politically, than an ideologue who's "my way or the highway" stance leads to rancor, bickering and stagnation -- and illegal and unnecessary wars.

UPDATE:  From Juan Cole:

The wire services are misinterpreting this statement as an about-face on Muqtada's part. It is not. It is a piece of bargaining. He is saying that he will swing the Sadrist movement around to support the transitional government if it will commit to throwing the Americans out of Iraq on a strict timetable. That is what Muqtada has wanted since the fall of Saddam. He started calling for a US withdrawal in April, 2003. It seems probable that one reason the Americans came after Muqtada in early April, intending to kill him, was fear that he will become powerful enough after June 30 to lobby effectively for the expulsion of the Americans. (It has now come out that the US military actually printed up broadsheets announcing thet Muqtada had been killed resisting arrest, and that some GI's jumped the gun and actually put some of those out in early April even though in fact, Muqtada eluded his American would-be murderers.) Paul Bremer's recent attempt to ensure that the major Sadrist leaders are not allowed to run for parliament has the same goal. The civilians in the Department of Defense such as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz probably went to war against Iraq in part precisely to get bases there. The realization that they might be tossed out at the instance of a few million Shiite slum dwellers has so infuriated them that they attacked the movement without provocation, killed about a thousand of them, and are now trying to disenfranchise several million Iraqis by disallowing Sadrists from holding office.