There have been reports that 1.8 million Iraqis have fled from Iraq and that a like number have relocated within Iraq to places in which their sect would be safe. There are Sunnis and Shiites scurrying all around Iraq for their safety. If the Sunnis were given their share, 20% of Iraq's area and resources, wouldn't the bloodshed lessen?
W doesn't care about lessening the sectarian violence. He wants to see more US troops die with his already failed surge option.
W tried to get Maliki's pledge that he would cooperate with the surge, but recently Maliki showed his intentions of aiding the Shiites commit genocide of the Iraqi Sunnis. The article "Bush Adviser's Memo Cites Doubts About Iraqi Leader" at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/world/middleeast/29military.html?_r=1&ref=toda
yspaper&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin states "Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister's office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq's most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries - when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi (JAM) killings - all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad."
There are credible reports that Sadr's JAM "death squads" are being given the uniforms of the Iraqi Interior Ministry as a method to attack Sunnis. Maliki's boys let the Hussein execution evolve into a situation in which the mass murderer is getting sympathy because the Shiites mocked him as they were killing him, and Maliki decided to publicize this to show the Shiites that he's Sadr's boy.
Maliki is just as incompetent and hypocritical as W is. We have a bad partner in him. The article "A local solution, Vietnam style" at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/21/opinion/edmoyar.php puts it this way "America should give Maliki the chance to restore order as he sees fit, provided his government does not try to suppress the insurgency through wholesale violence against Sunni civilians, as some fear it will.
If America lets Maliki deal with Iraq's problems using Iraqi forces, it will be able to determine more quickly whether he can save his country...
It is also possible that nationalists will try to stage a coup and install a more authoritarian, less sectarian government. America may decide to condone a coup if the situation becomes desperate enough. But it would be best advised to avoid orchestrating one as it did so disastrously in 1963.
The United States may ultimately find that no Iraqi leader can neutralize both the insurgents and the militias. The benefits of a self-sufficient Iraqi government are so great, however, that America must give Maliki the opportunity to try."
The new surge option that the Decider is going to soon propose is already leaking out and it will fail. Wasn't the recent "Operation Together Forward" just the same type of operation with just a different name, and also required massive Iraqi military participate--which never materialized?
The article "Pelosi, Reid Urge Bush To Begin Iraq Pullout" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501080_pf.html shows how the Democrats feel about the surge and states ""Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed," Pelosi and Reid wrote.
"Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. . . . Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain."
The option that would reduce the carnage is that of partitioning Iraq, not an already failed surge, which only W favors. Even his other GOP allies are beginning to talk out against the surge, but the GOP might hide their hatred of this idea for GOP partisan gain. The article "Iraq Group a Study In Secrecy, Centrism" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/25/AR2006112500886_ pf.html showed how W's surrogate, Baker geared the panel to get at an option favoring the GOP as "Brookings Institution fellow Michael E. O'Hanlon advocates the "soft partition" of Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities with land swaps and help with housing and jobs, so people could relocate to places where they are less threatened. He said he wishes he had testified before the panel so that his suggestion was not filtered out. "Some good ideas were killed in the cradle," he said."
Also favoring the partition concept is Democratic Senator Biden and GOP Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison as well as Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) as is detailed in the article "Partitioning Iraq --Would dividing the country decrease ethnic infighting or lead to more fighting and inflame the Middle East?" at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/30/iraq_partition/print.html.
W is sanctioning ethnic cleansing--while not considering the best option.
"Pelosi, Reid Urge Bush To Begin Iraq Pullout" at
"Partitioning Iraq --Would dividing the country decrease ethnic infighting or
lead to more fighting and inflame the Middle East?" at
"Iraq Group a Study In Secrecy, Centrism" at
"A local solution, Vietnam style"