Just let me do a pretty obvious consideration here, and to pose a quick question, after yet another attack against Italian military forces in Iraq in a few weeks, and another Italian soldier dead.

The new left-wing government promised a retirement of the troops from Iraq since before the elections. Even though former Prime Minister Berlusconi himself promised it, swearing he didn't want to go to Iraq in the first place, it is clear that it will be this new government to actually do it. Thus, as the mainstream interpretation goes, comes the terrorist attacks against Italian troops, to "accelerate" the process.

Now for the obvious consideration, from what I see: 'accelerate the process'? this is nonsense. It is obvious to me that the attacks are not possibly meant to "accelerate" the retirement of our troops, but to slow it down, and make it awkward. In fact, it is much harder now for the new government of this very middle-class country to hurry a getaway from Iraq while our troops are under attack. Although our military forces have a tradition of chickening out, this is going to inevitably look like too much of a chickening out.
Now, they promised to retire from Iraq, and they have to do it: but then, with the attacks, they are going to pay a price in popularity if they do it. Whatever the government decides in this situation, to stay a little more or to go away sooner, comes out bad.

So, the quick question: who calls for this attacks? What forces want to undermine the newly formed left-wing European governments just when they're about to unthread themselves from the bloody coalition of the willing? Are those the same forces that, after having realized how Zapatero was about to win in Spain and to retire the Spanish troops right after, tried to make it hard to him at the last moment with the attacks in Madrid? is this all a psy-op to transform decent retirements into humiliating retirements? And, finally: who stands to gain from this?

Not a so quick question, after all. But I think it's worthed a thought or two.

-- in picture: Italian soldiers on a road in Iraq. Some say all Italian professional soldiers are fascists, but I don't believe it. Yet I would like to know what's with all those roman salutes they exchange when they're far from the cameras.

I wish we wouldn't have to write about Berlusconi anymore, but it's impossible... Politically wise, Berlusconi is the equivalent of someone who crashes a party, ruining everyone's business but his own, and who his therefore forever talked about in all the subsequent parties.

This will probably be commented by many Italian bloggers, but, anyway: Apparently, the day before being kicked out of office Berlusconi wrote a letter to all the Heads of State of Europe, to undermine his successor's credibility as his last official act in public office. By doing this, he also undermined the remains of Italian credibility, although that's obviously none of his concerns.
According to L'Espresso, Berlusconi wrote to Blair, Zapatero and co. something like this: "I am going away, but I will be back when the votes will be recounted. I am the one who won the elections, and if I'm going away it's only because of the faulty Italian electoral system."

It must be noted that Berlusconi's government "corrected" the italian electoral system few weeks before the vote, so he can't blame anyone but himself. Also, in the meantime votes have been recounted finding nothing, no Florida case. But that's not the point.
The point is, if Italy was a Democracy, such a thing would not be possible. There would be enough respect for the rules and for the vote to keep one's personal resentment out of the question. But Italy is not a democracy, it is a oligarchy¹, and in the oligarchic mode of rule the going down families are always allowed some little dishonest see-you-later trick.

_{1. I know, I've said that before, what do you want. Everyone has his own obsessions.}