Scowcroft and Berger are pro-Sunni, hence the recommendation.

Why is Sandy Berger given any credibility at all? Perhaps there were reasons not to send him to jail, but he deserves to be shunned completely.

There was plenty of post-war planning. Unfortunately it was based on experience after Gulf War I, and things turned out completely different this time around. Even if there had been a well defined plan on what to do if the Iraqi army just disappeared and went home instead of surrendering, the template of a huge long term occupation turns out to have been grossly inappropriate. Hopefully we've learned the lesson, and will apply it in Syria & Iran.

Having more troops to keep the peace and end lawlessness, and a quicker withdraw are not contradictory. They might even be complementary.

--said the panel headed by Samuel Berger and Brent Scowcroft.---

We're supposed to trust them?

How is it that a Democrat and a Republican who was strongly opposed to the Iraq war well before we went in are labeled "independent"?

Scowcroft, whose entire military career consists of crashing a helicopter on a training run in deepest, darkest New Hampshire, should be listened to for precisely what reason?

Did they count the silverware after Berger left the room? And if there was a shortfall did they check his socks?

The carpet bombing of Fallujah, Tikrit and much of the Sunni triangle would have ended much of this 'resistance' and the rest would have ended with the splitting up of the place into its three constituent parts. But I doubt a Saudi stooge like Scowcroft and a corrupt kleptomaniacal lowlife like Berger would approve of either strategy.

Sending more young American men and women, particularly those of less than elite backgrounds, to be cannon fodder for the Jihadniks is more their style.

Bart is correct. The plan from the beginning should have been a 3-way partition of Iraq. That should be the plan even now. (appropriate distribution of Oil Revenues, of course)

Bart is quite right on this one. The failure has been one of nerve.

Let us think about how planning works. Alternative eventualitieas and courses of action are considered, even gamed out. It is almost like alternative history fiction. That the artificial contruct that was Iraq would break apart through civil war had to have been one of the more likely alternatives.

It was easy to forsee the eventuality in which the Sunnis and the Shiites would start playing Susquehannocks and Mohawks. The present difficulty stems from an unwillingness to go to Plan B.

We are paying these people--the administration, I mean--to have the nerve to settle this business and they are getting all LBJ on us.

Why should the Sunni get a state?

Funny, OJ, you want to give a state to the so-called Palestinians and they aren't even a people.

The Sunnis of Iraq had a province in the Ottoman Empire in the area surrounding Baghdad. They see themselves as a people distinct from the Kurds and the Shia Arabs. So by using your logic, much as it makes my brain hurt, they are entitled to a state.

Lou,

I am reminded of the old Spanish Falange whose battle cry was 'Erase the 19th century.' One of mine is a variant of that 'Erase the 1960s.'

Let the oil distribution fall where it may with Mosul and kirkuk going to the Kurds. Move our troops into Kurdistan as a safeguard against the Turks, Persians and Arabs and if the Sunnis persist let the Shiites handle them with our air support. Get that oil flowing to help support our expenses with a stipend tax per gallon. Move our airforce facility in Turkey to Kurdistan as part of our self sufficient Mideast Garrison. Provide anti-terrorist response forces in Shiite territory, by request, to back up their forces. Continue force training for the Shiites and kurds, by request. Respond to the Sunnis in kind ... best friend or worst enemy ... their choice.

bartr:

The Palestinians consider themselves a people and the rest of the world, including Israel, agrees. The Palestinians won.

The Shi'ite will have the power and potentially the will to drive the Sunni out. If the Sunni can stop them they'll get a state. If not, tough.

oj: I never suggested that the Sunnis get a state. The Susquehannocks didn't get one.

OJ:

Except that you've always said that any people who consider themselves a state are one. I think that was bart's point.

Matt:

They don't--they consider themselves Sunni Arab. There is no Iraq.

Samuel Berger, eh? Don't suppose this is to confuse those who might otherwise think this is sticky-fingers Sandy Burglar?