Iraq and riots

Last night I read some remarks in Patai's book to the effect that riots go back a long way as a common part of life in Baghdad. It said that the police decided it was easier to just let them run their course and then repair the damage.

So much of his portrayal of the Arab personality and character sounds bizarre that I have to wonder how it can be true, but the demonstrations/riots of the past week seem to confirm what he says, as does Zeyad of the Healing Iraq blog.

I don't think that anybody will contradict the characterization of the Arab street as volatile. The question is what to do about it. Amir Taheri recommends that:

The broader political picture also needs to be reviewed. Sadr's militia must be disarmed, by force if necessary. But the young mullah and his supporters must also be offered a place in the emerging political spectrum in Iraq ahead of general elections.

I'm not sure how allowing Sadr to be unaccountable for his violence encourages peaceful resolution of issues. This guy is responsible for 20 or more deaths among coalition troops and multiples of that of Iraqis. I understand the danger of igniting more riots, but I don't see how this solution would help. If Arabs are truly as fatalistic and resigned as everybody claims, wouldn't a quit end of Sadr and his militia be likely to convince them that it was not the will of God that Iraqis should rise up against the occupiers?

Taheri is Iranian, so he understands the the mentality of the people in the area mind better than I or Patai do, but it seems to me that to establish the principle that violence is not a choice, we need to be emphatic in stopping this kind of thing. I also recognize that we are infidels from the Muslim perspective, but if they think that going back to Saddam is preferable to dealing with the uncertainties of self-government, as Zeyad wrote, we may need to be a lot more emphatic to get the point across. We have to make it clear that Iraqis have no alternative to taking responsibility for themselves, instead of waiting for the new boss to seize power as soon as we are gone. They also have to rethink their assumptions about Americans, but that can't be done by June 30, I'm afraid. Unlike the French and Brits of the colonial era and the USSR, we don't want to be there permanently. We want them to do what Germany and Japan did after we defeated them, but it could be pretty dicey for us to pull out too soon.