They've actually been pretty darned diplomatic.

That was after the fighting occurred. Furthermore, they're diplomacy has consisted so far of ultimatums and focusing on capturing and killing outlaws (the tenuous ceasefire and move to negotiations being the only worthy diplomatic move so far).

Because he was wanted for questioning based on intelligence. When it turned out that he was (at least apparently) a decent guy they let him go. No biggie there.

Are we talking about the same guy? Because a certain spokesman was taken away for questioning in this fashion more recently (yesterday or the day before). I'm talking about the aide that was arrested (provoking the insurgency), the CPA denied arresting him initially adn hasn't released him yet.

Take a look at everything they've tried to let the Iraquis run on their own. Much of it has been a disaster. Their military is far from being up to handling even a militia like Sadrs and the cops, while often brave, are a disaster organizationally and are all almost completely unskilled.

Only the health ministry is run with complete autonomy. Furthermore, the military and police won't fight Sadr partly because in some cases you are right...they can't but also because they don't want to fight their own people especially when there is an increasing belief that the American/coalition presence is what triggered the massive unrest in the first place.

Quite simply, the Iraquis are not ready for more power. They aren't even handling well the power they have. That's the problem with ripping out a regime like the Baathists. It leaves a big power vacuum and that's what you're seeing now.

They don't have enough power. The Governing Council is also questionable in terms of respect, since they lack a popular mandate. To illustrate this, Sistani, Iraq's leading religious authority will not affiliate himself with them (coincedentally, he also persuaded Sadr to back down from his own ultimatums and negotiate).

So the international community can screw this up like they've screwed up so many other places they've "intervened"? No thanks. We don't need another Rwanda or Kosovo or Somalia.

Somalia - that was led by the US (it was UN backed). Rwanda, I agree totally. Kosovo - what's your point there?

I think all the Iraquis care about is getting things working again.

There were complaints by Iraqi firms that they could facilitate reconstruction faster and cheaper than U.S. companies.

It is my belief that Sadr was probably largely behind the rising in Fallujah and that these are one and the same action.

You're demonising him. Sadr is a Shia cleric as are his followers. Fallujah is part of the "Sunni Triangle", and enjoyed privileges under Saddam - that is the speculated reason for their dissent.