Juan Cole has some good stuff on Sadr

"Iran is not in fact implicated in the Sadr movement.
' It is undeniable that Iran monitors the situation in Iraq with great interest, firstly as the country sharing the longest border with Iraq and secondly in its capacity as self- appointed champion of the Shia wherever they might be. It is also naive to expect Iranian intelligence agencies to refrain from conducting business in a country where others have already set up shop. But in doing so, Iran is no different than the rest of Iraq's neighbours, except for the fact that its relations with the US are less than amicable . . . Given the strong Shia identity of many Iranian visitors to Najaf and Karbala, it is not inconceivable that some of them join the ranks of the Mahdi Army, especially when confronted with the attack on the shrine of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and fellow Shia losing their lives. But it does not logically follow that the Iranian government has played a role in this. '
He also says that "others are still clinging to the claim that Moqtada Al-Sadr is a hardliner who is impossible to appease."His reply to this argument is as follows
' Moqtada Al-Sadr's success in acquiring power is more a result of the failure of others to fill the power vacuum than his own charisma. . . If the only test for legitimacy in Iraq is the withdrawal of the occupation force, then Moqtada Al-Sadr will be the last viable Shia leader standing. This is especially true as long as Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani is not very keen on full engagement with the political process . . . Politically, the government of Allawi is not gaining any popularity for two main reasons: firstly because of heavy-handed policies -- curfews and clampdowns have alienated many people without making a significant difference on the security front. Secondly, the government has not succeeded in distinguishing itself in any practical way from the regime that was in place before it took charge . . . They must also realise that calling on the Americans to bomb holy cities on their behalf is not the way to garner support and cultivate favour ahead of future elections. '
Which raises the question: Have the Americans created Muqtada as a contender by attacking him since last April?"
This is Juan Cole's comments about an article by Abbas Kadhim he's somewhat of an expert on the business with Sadr, because he has personal ties to Najaf.
I think this makes an interesting distinction about the way the US has gone about halting insurgency in Iraq. As Kadhim states, Sadr isn't the 'best guy for the job', he's just the man that's available and has the right ties. Is it possible that the only reason Sadr is so popular is because the US saw his position, saw the possibilities, and attacked him as an insurgent leader before he was a leader at all? If that's the case, do Iraqis that support Sadr do it out of dislike for the American occupation or is it because just like the propaganda of media in the US, you keep telling the Iraqis that this is the leader of the largest insurgency and they make him a leader because of it. I don't know maybe it's putting the cart before the horse, but I remember reports about Sadr at the beginning of the war, and I recall him actually being considered as a cleric that could help the US with it's interim govt. All I can say is things are really wrong over there, and reporting that Sadr was wounded is only a way to create more angst in the country. Al-Jazeera's reports of Sadr's wounds was almost a call to arms. I know if I had respect for the man and I heard he was wounded by the US, I wouldn't get the impression that we're starting to win, I'd think that the US was wrong for attacking a good cleric. The proof that something is amiss is Sadr's statements to his followers. He told them not to act out of emotion and to realize that he is safe and being taken care of. Now if you led an insurgency and got hit, wouldn't you tell your troops to take all action they could to prove the strength of the movement? There are some big contradictions here on this enemy of the US. The picture I posted earlier in the week is an example. Every picture of Sadr in the US is unflattering. He always has some twisted look on his face or he looks beaten down or well just crappy. Maybe I'm that biased being American, but typically leaders are men that have a charm about them that the people like. They aren't some snarky weirdo with busted up teeth and poorly grown beards. I'm not coming any where near trying to say that Sadr is not currently taking a leadership position, I'm just suggesting that he may have been placed there as opposed to gaining that spot by popularity.