::::::::
I guess the idea is to back the winners, helping the U.S. maintain its interests [read: oil] there, at the cost of being a direct party to the killing and ethnic cleansing of tens to hundreds of thousands more Iraqis. Of course, the alternative of backing the Sunnis is equally horrifying and has the additional down side of backing a minority, the former elite. And the pretense of calming the civil war and bringing all sides together is a total sham, having so far resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and over a million exiles. That leaves withdrawal as the only reasonable option. Of course, there is no guarantee that withdrawal at this late date will improve the situation. But it will leave the fate of the Iraqis up to the Iraqis. They can then decide to develop a political compromise or die fighting. If, a big "if," the U.S. was trying to prevent a civil war there, they have completely failed. Now they can either openly support a civil war or withdraw. Here are excerpts from Laura Rozen's article:Unleash the Shiites? The U.S. may be forced to choose sides in Iraq's civil strife. By Laura Rozen, AS SECTARIAN violence rises in Iraq and the White House comes under increasing pressure to revamp its strategy there, a debate is emerging inside the Bush administration: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and, instead, throw its lot in with the Shiites? A U.S. tilt toward the Shiites is a risky strategy, one that could further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and that could backfire by driving its Sunni population into common cause with foreign jihadists and Al Qaeda cells. But elements of the administration, including some members of the intelligence community, believe that such a tilt could lead to stability more quickly than the current policy of trying to police the ongoing sectarian conflict evenhandedly, with little success and at great cost.... So what's the logic behind the idea of "unleashing the Shiites"? It's the path of least resistance, according to its supporters, and it could help accelerate one side actually winning Iraq's sectarian conflict, thereby shortening the conflict, while reducing some of the critical security concerns driving Shiites to mobilize their own militias in the first place. "As an alternative Plan B, it has the virtue of possibly being more militarily effective," said Thomas Donnelly, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "When you are trying to police [a civil war], all you can do is contain it," said Monica Toft, a professor specializing in ethnic conflict at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "Whereas if you're backing one side, there are not as many variables to control." But such a strategy brings with it significant dangers. Washington might pick the wrong leaders on the side it chooses to back. Should it, for instance, continue to back Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri Maliki, or tilt in favor of his Shiite rival, Abdelaziz Hakim, and his party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Either choice could lead to more intra-Shiite infighting and violence. Or the strategy could drive Iraq's Sunni tribes to align themselves more closely with Al Qaeda. And it seems certain to further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and erstwhile U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan - while strengthening Iran's hand in Iraq. Among the risks of an unleash-the-Shiites strategy is that if it were adopted, the White House would be unlikely to publicly acknowledge that such a choice had been made. Like so much else that has contributed to the U.S. difficulties in Iraq, it would be a decision taken in the dark, outside the realm of public debate.After rereading the article, I feel an increased sense of urgency to push for U.S. withdrawal, late as it is for this best the the awful options. Any pretense that the U.S. is a force to avoid civil war should be immediately abandoned.
