Originally Posted by Ryan
I think it is more likely to plunge the country further into civil war as opposed to taming the insurgency.
Hmmm, I think not. Seeing Sadam dead is probably one of the few things most of Iraq'* population can agree on. He was already discredited in the eye'* of the militants when he gave up meekly after swearing to fight to the death. The Baath party was always a small minority within the Sunni population, who themselves are a small minority within the area.
Partitioning the country into three chunks is probably the only way to end it. It has always been three ethnic areas for centuries. "Iraq" as a nation was the artificial creation of the British under the post WWI mandate. Before that, it was strictly tribal area under the Ottoman-Turk empire. (As was Persia..now known as Iran.)
I have been expressing the opinion from day one that once we kicked over that ant-hill, we were under no obligation to stay and help them sort it out. I admit that this is a very old-school and harsh way of looking at it, but it'* a pretty harsh world. As a nation, we have got to stop trying to recreate the Marshall Plan everywhere we go. Just because it worked in Europe and Japan after WWII does not mean it will work everywhere. Democracy cannot be imposed on a group by force of arms, they have to want it in the first place.