"Mr. Maliki has staked his reputation on the success of the Basra assault, fulfilling a longstanding American desire for him to boldly take on militias." We need a team to deconstruct the language of the New York Times on daily basis. Take this lousy sentence. Staked his reputation? Where? In Iraq or in Washington, DC? Certainly not in Iraq as the failed assault has been unpopular. Yesterday, the Maliki sectarian (pro-US, pro-Iran) puppet government said that Mahdi sectarian militia is worse than Al-Qa`idah, and today the same government praised the stance of Mahdi militia. Then the sentence speaks about "longstanding American desire for him.." Desire? Are you kidding me? US makes its desire known? How do you define desire? Like I desire that you bow down to me? I desire that you go and fetch me a beverage. I desire that you shine my shoes, o puppet prime minister of Iraq. And then it talks about "taking on" militias. Oh, no: there are militias and there are militias. The US wants him to take on the Mahdi militia but not the sectarian militias of Badr and Da`wah, or the US funded sectarian militias of the thugs of the tribal chiefs.