First, my own apologies for sounding like I came out swinging...the trouble with the written word in comments. Using the words "I reject" made my response appear more combatively defensive than they really were. Figured it'd come back to bite me. Anyway...

Quote Originally Posted by Ironhorse View Post
But I do think the sound bite (repeated below) has a bit of a <insert favorite ethnic strife here> flavor to it which applies to equally well to a couple of places.

And I find it increasingly hard to think of the legitimate, effective Iraqi government as distinct from the unsolvable Sunni-Shia conflict, which unfortunately still seems to be the miracle that needs to happen for it all to work out.
On the first regarding near universal fit elsewhere, quite fully agreed there, sir. But if the shoe fits, well, it fits, regardless of how many wear the Air Jordan's... In just about any <insert your favorite ethnic strife here> conflict, we may be able to force down the level of violence in the short term, but the solution is never ours to impose, but one that the two (or more) sides must agree upon, amicably or not. Just as I have said speaking or writing on the subject, the absence of violence is not victory (nor solution), but it is precisely what the ISG report and its supporters popularly tout as 'Success' in Iraq. I say, "Poppycock."

Helluva point you make, by the way, next of pointing out the intertwined nature of the sectarian split and the Iraqi gov't itself (or rather, its various members from each competing faith or school of thought). Not an observation that escaped us, but it may have escaped overt illustration in this document.

However, one thing we do state overtly (perhaps not within this direct context) is that the US needs to understand what it can control and influence (and what it cannot) and set out to address that which it can. To that end, we cannot affect the sectarian nature of the membership of the elected Iraqi government. Only the Iraqis and those they elect can do that.... However, what we can do is smash (inside, AQAM) or block (outside [mostly], Iran and Syria - in its relatively limited supporting role) those who are intentionally exacerbating this divide to the point where the Iraqis can - again - at least have a chance at political reconciliation. I don't see how we have any logical choice. We can't settle it, but we sure as hell can improve the environment.

And this is to say absolutely nothing of the greater reason for smashing AQAM - primarily beginning with the proven Fallujification of Ramadi....followed not by relaxation of tempo, but an aggressive pursuit through momentum.

The alternative is unpalatable.

I would say two cents, but that's more like a quarter...

Definitely appreciate those in here who read and critique what we have put together. Yes, we put considerable time and effort, but nothing worth having is ever free or easy, and by the same token, nothing is ever perfect or bulletproof. The criticism and/or praise from within the collective experience and insight here at SWJ is valuable and meaningful.