"We'll deal with the contingencies of the 'what if' when it occurs"

As noted in a previous post, the U.S. military in Iraq apparently saw no reason to develop a plan in case al Sadr's ceasefire ended:

"We'll deal with the contingencies of the 'what if' when it occurs," U.S. military spokesman Rear Admiral Greg Smith told reporters on Wednesday. "As of today the ceasefire remains in place and we would hope and expect it to continue."

Here are recent relevant headlines:

Sadr militia battle troops in four Iraqi cities
Iraq's Sadr threatens civil revolt after deadly clashes
Sadr followers stage Baghdad protest

So... NOW are the Generals addressing the contingencies of the 'what if'???

You know, as opposed to - oh, I don't know - pursuing policies that directly provoke al Sadr's followers?

Aside: Over and over we are told by just about everyone that Iraq is not a problem that can be addressed militarily; that it requires a political solution.
... and over and over we see both U.S. and Iraqi forces pursuing military solutions! The latest great tactic - leading directly to the revolt of al Sadr's Mahdi Army - has been targetting leaders of the Mahdi Army.

I realize that this reflects the worldview of W and his minions - that diplomacy, dialog, and negotiation just "reward bad behavior". Besides, it's a lot more fun to fight - and it's so much more manly and romantic!

BUT: how long can our country survive this? (For that matter, how long can the Iraqis survive this?)

Stop the madness!