AAR from an American tanker in Iraq

[V]

i find it funny in a morbid way that the Sunnis hate the US and allies so much, yet we are probably the only thing saving them from a full blown Shi'a assault.

[Battlefront.com]

V,

i find it funny in a morbid way that the Sunnis hate the US and allies so much, yet we are probably the only thing saving them from a full blown Shi'a assault.

Which is why I suggest that one of the most logical paths is to force them to understand this in the most, ehm, clear way possible. Pull out US troops, cover our eyes, and let the Shia dominated Army in. A threat like this might tip things back in favor of the Coallition. The problem with this is it can NOT be a bluff. But if it isn't a bluff then the Coallition has to be prepared for a significant amount of genocide guilt. Which is why Realpolitik has to be held in check in this case. No politician is going to sign off on that Order of the Day

Steve

[PSY]

Originally posted by pad152:

I think the biggest issue was not having a McAruther type to take command once Iraq fell. Some one who could lay down the law without 500 lawers telling him what he could not do! Someone who could teach the Iraqies separation of church and state.

I don't think someone dictating absolute policy would have worked all that well without more boots on the ground. As far as I can tell, we never really had complete control of Iraq. Truly radical changes (even early on, before everything went downhill) probably would have brought us into conflict with the Sadr militia or various other factions. We might have been able to handle them back at the start before they grew in size and power, but not without more troops then we originally had in theatre.

[Blofeld]

Steve is just chomping at the bit to let the Shia militias loose on Al-Anbar province. He is just an un-reformed cold war warrior at heart.

I actually have a different viewpoint. Siding with the Shiites will just ensure Shia dominance over Iraq. That will result in an Iraq which is allied with Iran, which also has a shiite majority. That would be unpalatable to the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and yes, even Syria.

A different strategy would be to back the Sunnis. They already have a strong base in Al-Anbar. It may be a tough sell, since Sunnis have been bearing the brunt of american counter-insurgency efforts, but they also know that a permanent Shia-run government in Iraq is not in their best interests.

A Sunni led Iraq, at this point, would not be pro-U.S., but it would counterbalance Iran, which would, more or less, restore the pre-2003 balance of power in the region.

Now some people may ask: "Why go to war to replace one Sunni dictatorship with a different Sunni dictatorship?" To which I can only reply: "Welcome to the wonderful world of middle eastern politics."

[Battlefront.com]

If the US were to back the Sunnis (even if they would listen, which they likely wouldn't) then I suspect Iran would quit pretending it is on the sidelines and openly enter the fray. And that is all we need... the MAJORITY population of Iraq, sitting on top of our (err... Iraqi ) oil in open conflict with the Coallition forces backed by the full might and oil riches of a potentially nuclear foe . I would expect Iran would actual move in conventional military forces over the border. The Coallition would complain and the Iranians would answer back "well, what are you going to do about it?".

Nope, this would be a major mistake. Even having a Shia dominated, pro Iranian government installed in Iraq would be a better solution. Of course, I think the whole war of words with Iran is rather stupid. There is SO much room for deals there. I respect the Iranians quite a bit for their pragmatisim. After all, when they toppled the Shaw the anti-American sentiment and rhetoric was at its height, yet they happily made secret arms deals with The Devil. Now that is a "welcome to the wonderful world of middle eastern politics"

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

My previous musings about the U.S. backing a coup were more or less in jest, but it turns out I am not the only one thinking the same thing:

"So loud has the chorus of doubt in Washington grown over whether the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will be able to take the necessary steps to reverse the sectarian tide — such as curbing the Shi'ite militias to whose political leaders he remains beholden — that President Bush on Monday had to phone Maliki to reassure him that he still had U.S. support. (That may have been a comfort to Maliki, since the Iraqi capital has also been awash with rumors of a U.S.-backed coup that would replace Maliki with a "strongman" capable of getting the job done.)

from Time Magazine:

Washington's worst kept secret: changes are coming to Iraq policy

[MikeyD]

"I think the biggest issue was not having a McAruther type to take command once Iraq fell. Some one who could lay down the law without 500 lawers telling him what he could not do!"

Did anybody catch the PBS 'Frontline' report a couple nights ago on Paul Bremmer's first year in Iraq? Oh Lordy! Whatever problem we had (have) with organizing the occupation you can't blame it on 500 lawyers telling anybody what to do. I recall there was mention of a major section of the reconstruction being handled by two college frat brothers!

[V]

If Iran could defeat the Coalition in Iraq, the whole of the Arabian peninsula would be open to them.

Scary thought, but hopefully the Russians and Turks wouldn't want to see that happen.