“Their current problem is that American incompetence destroyed indigenous structures of conflict resolution, administration and law and order. It also interfered with the mechanisms used traditionally to create the factional balances required for civil society to function without violence. ”

The ‘indigenous structures of conflict resolution’ was “do what Sadam wants, or he’ll kill you and your family”. If you think that had we simply captured sadam and walked away the country would be much different I think your overplaying the US’s incompotence. The US isn’t actively destroying the country, but we certainly aren’t helping build it either. We could replace that structure, but it would involve picking a new dictator.

“The new American message to Iraq’s native warring factions should be, “We will not referee your fratricide. If you want us to leave, you must reach your own sustainable political settlements. You can not push us out through insurgency and chaos. We will leave when the fighting stops. In the interim, we will not favor any group or fight alongside it.â€?”

Excuse me, but what the hell does that mean?!? What would be the rules of engagement of the US military? We could only intervene if it didn’t favor any group? What if a sunni death squad was rounding up shia women and children and killing them in the streets, or vica versa? I afraid that at depressing as that is, stopping something like that is taking a side in Iraq.

The only way to ‘not take a side’ is to say that there is no legitimate authority other than the US troops. That’s heavy occupation, takes many, many troops, and I believe what we should have done at the start of this whole thing.

You WILL form a government. That government WILL pledge unending support for the USA. Even if said support is not in the best interest of Iraq.

We will not leave until you do exactly as we say. And no foreign country (other than us of course) will attempt to influence the plan we have given you.

I’m reminded of the US Marine’s list of funniest things in Iraq. When the marines came across an old Iraqi they asked him if he’d seen any foreign fighters in the area.

He replied, just you.

The new American message to Iraq’s native warring factions should be, “We will not referee your fratricide. If you want us to leave, you must reach your own sustainable political settlements. You can not push us out through insurgency and chaos. We will leave when the fighting stops. In the interim, we will not favor any group or fight alongside it.�

Good luck getting the public behind that one (either the Iraqi or US public that is). Also, you’ll have a hard time squaring this with all our past statements.

A concurrent message is: “Our military mission in Iraq will be to disallow three things. First, the creation of an Iraqi government hostile to the US and its allies or one that harbors global terrorists. Second, exogenous interference if that is hostile to the US. Third, partition of Iraq among Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.�

A third message is: “If you take the route of this kind of beneficial political settlement, we will help you with massive aid for reconstruction and development.� The aid is required to repair some of America’s blunders in this war.

In other words, it’s our way or the highway (well, not the highway since this infers we’ll never leave until the Iraqis come around to doing what we want, when we want it, how we weant it).

At the moment, there is only one element in favor of the US. It derives from the fact that no faction is strong enough to prevail over others without American military help or help from some other foreign power.

Brij Khindaria, meet the Shia. More than strong enough to prevail over the other groups, without US military help. In fact, at this point the US military is the only thing preventing their domination through ruthless bloodshed and political maneuvering.