This seemed like a good answer (from the Denver Post this morning):
"In June, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by coalition forces in a raid which looked suspiciously as if it had been set up by his own uneasy allies among the Sunni and former Baathist extremists.
Last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered coalition forces to take down checkpoints they set up in Tharwa (formerly Sadr City) and criticized coalition attempts to arrest a *****e militia leader. (The *****e are the majority religious sect, persecuted under Saddam Hussein.)
The first event tells me the minority Sunnis (who used to be on top in Saddam's government) were finally fed up with the presence of foreign fighters who wanted to set up an Iranian-style theocracy.
The Sunnis cleared the decks to face the *****e directly - either by a deal or, if the *****e chose, by violence. The *****e responded with militia attacks.
The second event tells me that the Iraqi government is asserting the sovereignty that we officially gave them in June 2004. Whether the decision to take down the checkpoints was wise, al-Maliki wants it known that he is in charge.
Together, the two events tell me that it's time to step to one side and let both sides slug it out.
While I was on active duty in Iraq on the coalition forces staff, I wrote a paper in support of an idea that many others in and out of the military had floated: Pull coalition forces out of the cities and put them on bases in the desert. My reasoning was:
1. The Iraqis largely don't care about the desert;
2. We would be paying them rent for the desert (as we do in other places around the world where we have bases on foreign soil);
3. It would effectively protect Iraq's western and southwestern borders;
4. We would be largely out of sight to most of the population;
5. There would be few surprise attacks on us in the desert since we would see people coming for miles; and
6. That area of the world would get the message: The U.S. is not going away.
So why stay at all? Because complete abandonment would not only lead to implosion but - even worse - the destruction of Iraq as its neighbors tear it apart.
I know Iraqis. They are a brave and proud people. Of all fates, surely they do not deserve this.
Of course, if we step "outside the ring" by moving out of the populated areas and into the desert, one of two things could happen: Both sides could realize we are no longer there to offer whatever restraint we could, and the prospect of fighting to the death may sober them up, make them sit down and talk it out. Or they may choose to fight to the death.
A bloody solution? Unless we are willing to fill the country with thousands more of our troops and impose a "king's peace," yes. Unless we are prepared to maintain a Roman-style occupation, yes."
This is the right idea, I think.
