Replies

Another strategy would redirect the U.S. military away from the internal strife to focus mainly on hunting terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Letting the country fall apart to hunt al-Qa'ida is dumb on two levels. First, we need specialized units and resources to hunt AQI, and they're already comitted. It just takes time to gather the intelligence needed to find them. Putting more troops on the problem isn't going to help noticibly, but it will allow chaos to spread elsewhere. Not a good trade.

I should point out that this is likely a code for saying "Cut back on all missions except hunt al-Qa'ida", making it the cute sister of 'Cut and Run'. We can't really beef up the hunt AQ mission, since it's a very specialized task that takes specialized troops and resources, and they're already in the game. Cutting down on everything else would keep the popular part of the war up and running, and let everything else go to hell.

That, by itself, is a remarkably stupid plan. If you instead make it a "Hunt al-Qa'ida, turn all other missions into 'train Iraqis'", then the plan has some merit, and would produce good long term results for us.

I see it changing little. What I see is, our wording of what we are doing, is changing. If the focus on the wording, like saying, "we are now committing more resources to hunting down terrorists in Iraq, and staying away from internal strife" is just a change of focus on the words, and doesn't really play on the ground. We are already standing back in most cases when it comes to internal strife. Unfortunately, the media's focus is the internal strife, and the three key plans doesn't address the media much. People are still focusing on what's going wrong. Real results though might be seen if we commit more to training Iraqi troops. That action, we can physically see. Joe sitting on his couch wants things he can physically see, and not spin on words. Most are not as savvy as the average Freeper, and doesn't understand political spin and empty suit pontifications.

I don't have the in-depth knowledge you do on this, so please set me straight where I am in error:

As I recall,

- AQ set out to start this sectarian battle, by enlisting Sunnis to work with it's people to attack Shiites.
- The Shiite's took a lot of hits for quite a while, with Sistani asking them not to retaliate. (Apparently Iran only has influence with Mookie and not Sistani.)
-Mookie disagreed with Sistani, and gained strength from Shiite's seeking retaliation and protection, with the former top guy, Sistani, eventually washing his hands, shutting his mouth, and losing his leadership position.
-So now we have the Kurds on the sidelines, Iran in charge of the Shiite's in Iraq (via Mookie), and SOME of the Sunni allied with AQ in either fighting the occupiers or trying to keep from being ruled by Shiites.
-We have SOME Sunni tribal chiefs realizing they cannot win against the Shiites and therefore cooperating WITH THE COALITION in fighting AQ (democracy being their best bet,remember how the Sunni voted in the 2nd election).
-We don't want Iran to run any of Iraq (We supported Saddam in his war against Iran. The just-retired Sec. of Defense met with Saddam during that war.)
- Neighboring Sunni countries do not want Iran to win in Iraq.
-Iran is now winning this war.
- We want Iraq to be as much of a democracy as is possible, because the original goal was to change business-as-usual in the ME.
- Syria, and of course Saudi Arabia, participated with the Coalition in the Gulf War.
- Syria and Saudi Arabi don't want a democracy, or anything like it in the ME, but they don't want Iran to win either.

It seems to me that we need more Sunni countries adopting the same conclusion that some Sunni chiefs have come to, i.e. better to work with the occupiers in fighting AQ, because Iran winning is the real problem.

Seems to me that Baker's "flip Syria" may be the key. Getting the surrounding Sunni countries to agree, like some Sunni chiefs, that, above all else, Iran must not win, even if a "democracy" in Iraq is a possible outcome.

The "flipped" Sunni countries now fight AQ, and urge the Sunni in Iraq to negotiate an end to the sectarian violence. A negotiated end to the violence does not serve Iran's interests, but in fighting a settlement, Iran's true intentions eventually become apparent. Sistani, or his supporter (Hmmmm, wasn't there a meeting in the Oval Office this week with a Shia cleric, while the VP flew back from a 2 hour meeting in Saudi Arabia?) regain power and influence.

A federal, "democratic", unified Iraq becomes the only alternative that leave all parties winning something, except possibly Iran. Thus explains Baker thrusting his hand in the air and loudly urging, "Flip Syria!"

Now, the military strategy: The military strategy FOLLOWS the political strategy, and reactions to it by the various parties.