I am no blogger, pundit, or anything of that nature--but I have always thought that the US would have been better going the route of having a slightly more cuddlier Baathist regime in power than going the route of outright western style democracy in Iraq. If the reconstituted Baathist are authoritarian but not brutal, and willing to keep the Islamist elements in check, keep the oil flowing, and not out to seek WMDs to use against the US or Israel, why not? If they are going to go this route by hiring ex-Republican Guards etc. they also better think on having a more autonomous Kurdistan. At this point, if the Turks have diarrhea over the Kurds, let them take some diplomatic kayopectate. The Shiite government has proved itself already. They are totally in the Iranian camp. Although Sistani at one time appeared to be a man of reason, he has long been umnable to call the shots (who knows what he was really thinking anyway). I am wondering if this has been the thinking of David Petraeus?
Of course replacing the Iraqi regime with someone like Allawi who is pro American, anti Iranian and anti al-Qaeda and waiting until Iraq built the basic institutions of a democracy would have been the smart thing to do before having elections.
That said it is the Maliki government that has decided to allow de-Baathification to be greatly reduced. He actually does want to be a Prime Minister for all Iraqis. But, because of the PR parlimentary list system we created in Iraq he has been quite constrained.
The Baathists should have not been viewed at the overthrow of Saddam as all our enemies and the Shia as our friends. The Baathists are the only ones who know how to govern a country like Iraq. The Shia have no experience whatsoever.
But, that is water under the bridge. The Baathists can play a major role in helping to rebuild and secure Iraq, because what motivates them is money not religion.