Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi army has been quiet. It has not been idle. Sadr has been purging his force of unruly or disloyal elements, which has resulted in some violence. Police and U.S. troops ignored it, as it was just a bunch of Sadrs thugs killing each other. Sadr would like to produce a force of similar strength, discipline and independence as the Lebanese Hizbollah. But Sadr is not the only religious fanatic trying to impose his will on others. There are dozens of religious leaders trying to make everyone follow their vision of what Islam should be, and willing to kill those who do not comply. Now that the Sunni Arab terrorists have been beaten down, the Shia Arab fanatics have come out to kill and destroy.
Yet as long as foreigners do not use these factions for their own ends, can they threaten the government? The Iraqi security forces are far stronger now and they will have to face only the Shia fanatics who do not represent the majority of Shias even collectively let alone as individual factions.
As long as the armed factions can be controlled and restrained, this Shia factionalism may be a blessing. If Iraqi competition is limited to the ballot, having many Shia power centers will give Kurds and Sunnis a chance to make legislative deals with various Shia parties. Instead of a monolithic Shia bloc that votes as it wants over Sunni and Kurd objection, this will make Iraqi politics less religion- and ethnicity-based.
Again, this relies on keeping the radical factions from using bullets. This relies on fostering rule of law. But I think I'd be far more worried about the prospects of a democratic Iraq if the Shia were a monolithic bloc.
