W has managed to make both sects hate the US infidels. Of course he would inevitably alienate everyone. W has been play-acting his role as the US "war-time president", with "Crusades" against those who are against us, in his insane "GWOT", acting as his motivation. W has started a preemptive war with dangerous people in a dangerous part of the world-therefore it was just a matter of time before the occupied people would begin to hate the occupiers.
General Wesley Clark the Supreme Allied Commander during the war in Kosovo, fashioned the Dayton peace plan while holding together the alliance of 19 nations, and isolating Milosevic from his allies. He knows what he is talking about regarding war-making and maintaining coalitions and in the article "The Smart Surge: Diplomacy" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700980_pf.html he writes "The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.
The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but absent a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical....
Some initial successes would be evident. But how significant would this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late."
Remember that within W's surge option is the 80% solution that has one goal that of helping the Iraqi Shiites exterminate the Iraqi Sunnis as detailed in the November 29, 2006 article "THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ; Bush Adviser's Memo Cites Doubts About Iraqi Leader" at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B13FA3A5A0C7A8EDDA80994DE40482.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear--W's national security adviser, Stephen J Hadley's memo referred to above wasn't accidentally lost, it was intentionally leaked months ago to provide coverage for W's surge insanity and to nullify any thoughts that W has been asleep at the switch for all this time after the "Mission Accomplished" farce!
The document contradicts W's stooge, Baker's Iraq Study Group's recommendation thus muddying the water regarding the Iraq Exit Strategy and can be summarized as:
Strike one- Maliki doesn't have capacity to control sects, even including his own Shiites
Strike two- it calls for US a "surge" to Baghdad to make up for shortage of Iraqi force
Strike three-you're-out--Maliki is Sadr's stooge and is willing to exterminate every last Sunni for sectarian Shiite advantage.
Can't anyone remember the recent, failed "Operation Together Forward" which is identical to W's unannounced as yet, but known by everyone, surge, which is yet another example of W leaking information that is favorable to his failed ideas?
So, you'd think that the Shiites would be ecstatic about being the favored group, but even here W fails as detailed in the article "For Iraq's Shiites, a Dream Deferred Breeds Mistrust of U.S." at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100912.html. These Shiites are very duplicitous as exemplified by "Hasan Suneid, a member of the Shiite Dawa party and a close aide to Maliki's remark "It means the base of their thinking is not stable," he said, referring to the Americans. "They are going to lose the Shiites. And they won't win the Sunnis back, because they attacked them at the beginning. So now both sides will lose confidence in the United States."
Don't these accurate quotes amount to a death knell for the US military and the Sunnis? The US is clearly following Maliki's orders, not their own military, to the detriment of the Sunnis and "That worries Sunni leaders. "The U.S. needs to send a clear message: We will act toward Iraqis in a fair and equal way," said Ayad al-Sammarae, a prominent Sunni politician. "We can't punish one criminal and forgive another."
In October, in the government's strongest assertion of sovereignty yet, Maliki ordered U.S. forces to lift a blockade of Sadr City, the huge Shiite slum in Baghdad. For everyday Shiites, it was another turning point in their relationship with their liberators. "This is the first time he has stood up to the occupiers," Abdul Amir Ali said with pride. "It was like a victory for us when the Americans obeyed Maliki."
W's stupid surge is dependent upon Maliki cooperating. Why would he? During the recent "Operation Together Forward" Maliki was in the US being escorted around by W and Maliki said he wouldn't do anything against Sadr because he considered the operation to be only political cover for W's GOP in the upcoming election. As far as Maliki is concerned what has changed? Nothing and he has go on the record to say he hates his position and won't consider running again. What motivation could he possibly have to cooperate with big bro 43? According to Maliki's own remarks he'd appreciate a bloodless coup, which Hadley's memo suggests will happen if Maliki doesn't shape up.
The sectarian Shiite advantage is very similar to the partisan GOP advantage. The Shiite policies eradicate the Sunni 20% instantaneously, while W's GOP policies only benefit the top 1% and are so destructive to the remaining 99% that a quick death seems preferable.
What could a rational person expect? Another Washington Post article "Irrational Is as Irrational Does" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/08/AR2007010800237_pf.html makes it clear that W is irrational, and has been for years, as he writes "Let me explain. In Iowa, during the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush answered a question about why he so ardently supported capital punishment. He offered a number of reasons, but one -- deterrence -- prompted me to raise my hand and ask a follow-up: But, sir, there is absolutely no evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent. To my astonishment, Bush conceded my point: "You're right. I can't prove it. But neither can the other side prove it's not."
Ponder that answer for a while. What it means is not just that Bush embraced a famously irrational way of thinking -- the logical fallacy often called "proving a negative" -- but in this case he used it to overwhelm all evidence to the contrary. Once you know this, you can appreciate what Bush means when he calls himself The Decider. It means that evidence, arguments, proof and logic cannot be conclusive when, as is often the case, the president proceeds on what can be called a matter of faith."
The Decider is irrational and only that explains his surge.
Related articles :
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ; Bush Adviser's Memo Cites Doubts About Iraqi Leader at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B13FA3A5A0C7A8EDDA80994DE404482
For Iraq's Shiites, a Dream Deferred Breeds Mistrust of U.S. at
The Smart Surge: Diplomacy at
Irrational Is as Irrational Does at