The Battle of Baghdad

According to news reports here, here, here, and here, an uprising has begun (once again) in Iraq. If you are too lazy to read the articles, the short story is that Al-Maliki has ordered Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army to surrender all weapons. The militia refused and so fighting has broken out. The U.S. is supporting Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, while the British support them in Basra (where the conflict has spread to).

One thing that is interesting is that Al-Sadr's side claims that this is an attempt by Maliki to destroy his party before the elections. My view is (and tell me if you disagree because it is an American view) that Sadr is missing the point that his militia is essentially a private army in the heart of the capital. What would an American think if (insert any politician's name) had a private army outside of Washington D.C. to help support his/her power in the Government. Chances are it would make you a little uneasy. Besides the obvious conflicts of interest involved in having two armed groups in the country following rival political leaders, it is extremely counterproductive for both sides.

Sadr is destroying his own party before the elections. It is not unreasonable for a government to disarm gangs and militias while trying to take over security operations. By refusing to lay down arms and promote peace in the war-torn city his bloc is committing political suicide because they will likely be imprisoned, killed, or lose backing. Had they laid down their weapons and promoted peace, or at least pretending to, they could have much more clout to use at the elections.

What do you think about this?