Recently there has been an announcement of a new coalition of political interests in Iraq. This coalition has the blessing of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the leading Shiite cleric. It has patched together support from a diverse spectrum of the Iraqi population as well including Sunnis and Kurds.

The questions for debate are:

Is this a major breakthrough on the way to creating a stable democracy in Iraq or is it something less than that?

New Iraqi group to compete in elections

In my humble opinion, while it is a breakthrough, I'm not sure it's one of great consequence for two reasons. First of all, as you of course know, the Shiites make up only one of the many factions that will take part in the attempted construction of a democracy of Iraq. This leaves the Kurds and Sunnis, among others, to come together behind the new government as well. Secondly, Iraq has had exactly zero democracies in a history that goes way back to ancient Mesopotamia. While it was, by no stretch, a bad thing that Saddam was removed from power, the history of the region should have been taken into account before we decided to unwisely invade Iraq to spread our American Empire.

Both major Kurdish Parties have joined this coalition, as well as some Sunnis.

...and the Kurdish regions of Iraq has certainly had experience with democracy ever since '92.

It's not as bad as it is often presented.

First I don’t see how you make the leap of an American Empire? And, a bad thing Sadam was removed from power? You have to be in one of the smallest minorities in the world in your reasoning! We did not unwisely invade Iraq; Iraq unwisely invaded Kuwait and then refused to leave at the demand of the world. Then Iraq refused to prove disarmament as was set as a condition of ceasefire.

Any political arrangement that leads to the inclusion of the Sunni’s and other main sects is a GOOD thing; the alternative is Civil War or just the plain out extinction of the Sunni race in Iraq. What exactly do you think would happen if a select few Mexican Americans or Afro Americans would start blowing up weddings and police stations every day? Would, once an organized angry mob with pitchforks is gathered of the majority will it choose to kill only the guilty blacks or Mexicans or will it try to destroy all black or Mexicans where the source of the violence causing life to be unlivable has arisen?

You're right. I failed to think about the Kurds having dealt with democracy over the past 12 or so years. I just meant that the region has not, historically, been one that embraces western-style thinking, especially in terms of government. The situation regarding support for the new government is perhaps better than I made it sound, but it still has two points that make me strongly question how happy the Iraqis really are about this.

First of all, what other choice do they have other than to support the government? That would be like saying I support sunrise tomorrow morning. It doesn't much matter whether they support it or not, as it is going to happen, regardless. It seems that by throwing their support behind this new government, they are only lobbying for power when it is finally created. Secondly, I'm also not sure it says very much about the Iraqi people being content with our occupation and their impending puppet government that I have to hear the word "insurgents" every night on the news, and watch the casualties mount for our brave men and women.

I just want to clear up that I said it was, by no stretch, a bad thing that Saddam was removed from power. That means it was a GOOD thing. Did a report not just come out, saying Iraq had no WMD's? I thought we were talking about this Iraq War, not the first Gulf War. I supported the first Gulf War, and the sanctions were working, save for a few scuds that posed no real threat to us.

I think it is easy to see the difference here. The chances of success of the new government are fragile. As of right now, they would have no hope of survival were coalition troops to pull out. Currently the resistance is not popular, if it were to become mass resistance, I think it would likely succeed.

So, Iraqis do have a choice. It just happens to be a very clear one between order and freedom in a democracy or the murderous chaos of the insurgency.

1. The "occupation" ended with the dissolution of the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) months ago. The has been legally recognized in UN resolutions. The IRaqi interim government is the authority of Iraq now.

2. Neither the interim government, nor the more permanent government to come are likely to truly be puppets. The current president of the interim government has been known for his harm criticism of US decisions.

The puppet government theory is entirely unbacked.

I agree. I simply meant that they had little choice if they wanted anything but chaos.




If you're talking about Allawi, I find it hard to believe that you see anything but a direct collaboration between Interim Prime Minister Allawi and the US. Not only did Allawi work with the CIA (link below), but there is also suspicion that the Bush Administration actually drafted his speech for Congress in September(link also below). That doesn't much sound like "harsh criticism" to me.

-I'm not sure if this board supports links, but here are two for the aforementioned allegations of Allawi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...004May28_2.html
(see 11th paragraph)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep27.html

Allawi is not the president of Iraq. He's Prime Minister.

The current president of Iraq is Ghazi Al-Yawer. He's a moderate secular Sunni.

In the last polls I saw on the Iraqi election, Al-Yawer was one of the leading candidates.

Is this a major breakthrough on the way to creating a stable democracy in Iraq or is it something less than that?

I would not describe this as a major breakthrough, but it is the most encouraging news I've heard from Iraq in a very long time.

I do think however that a degree of scepticism should be applied to any notion of Iraqi unity until after we have seen the election results. So far the numbers of Iraqi ex pat's signing up to vote have proven disappointing and there is a danger that the majority of Iraqi's in Iraq also feel nothing what so ever for this United Iraqi Alliance. I hope this is not the case.

Also. This is the sort of initiative I would rather have seen directly after the down fall of Saddam Hussein when Iraqi unity and self determination might have saved hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent lives.

Still... it is a very good sign. It shows that there are yet still forces in iraq prepared to at least try to build the nation beyond any outside interference and that is what it is going to take if Iraq is to ever be free.

I apologize for not understanding English. I still don’t understand your use of by no stretch with commas to support a negative, then I have spent most of my adult life overseas speaking broken English. I would not misunderstand had you said, while it wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination a bad thing that Sadam was removed form power., then again only European fairy tales and fairies used words in public like “as well” that are common in these modern days in comparison to my youth.

The Gulf and Iraq War are one and the same. Yes I read and heard the reports about the WMD’s and so? You say you supported the first Gulf War then you support the war for it was only one war. We did Desert Storm (Gulf War), went into ceasefire based on a mutually agreed contract for Sadam to peacefully disarm and show proof to the UN and then completed the mission when Sadam failed to live up to the contract to prove he had peacefully disarmed. The sanctions were working to fill the pockets of the UN, France and Russia with money and build palaces while the average Iraqi suffered. Suffered to the extent of an estimated loss of life of over two million citizens. The contract was for Sadam to prove he had disarmed not for the UN to prove he had no illegal weapons. Sadam held one hand behind his back while he gave the UN and the world the finger with the other. Nothing had changed, he was an oppressive dictator with ambition to control the entire gulf oil output and simply was doing a waiting game to be free of liability for his invasion so he could continue his ambition. Why are you his defender if you supported the Gulf War? If you support it you say you would go die there for that war. Had you died there in the Gulf War and Sadam peed on your death spot as he gave the UN the finger would your family care? Or, would they say the war in its entirety was just?

The First Gulf War responded to an invasion of Kuwait, and while the case can be made for calling this an extension of that war, this portion of the war is being fought on an entirely different premise. The reasoning behind this war has me worried because it keeps changing. If Saddam had WMD's, it may be a different story, but "he's a bad man" doesn't cut it as an excuse for war, and neither does being insubordinate. Finally, I'm not defending this man! The only thing I am guilty of defending is sensible foreign policy, the type the rest of the civilized world takes part in. I'm glad he's getting what he deserves, but at what cost? Saddam was a bully and a dictator, but did he pose a direct threat past defying the UN? NO.

In fact, did our own President not ignore the UN when he wanted to act unilaterally? If I had died in this war, I would be very unhappy for two reasons: (A) I would be dead, and (B) I would have died fighting for something not totally necessary to the security of my homeland.

It would not make a difference to me or my family if Saddam peed on my grave or not. Perhaps that will be the next great reason our President gives us to go to war (I wouldn't put it past him). The bottom line is that I would not be any more likely to support the war if he had done that, and would remain angry only with those who sent me to my death.

The vote of confidence was that because the authority was the Gulf War and ceasefire and Bush said so in public speeches.

As it relates to the topic of the Sunni’s in the mix politically lets take a look at the whole war objectively. Kuwait’s main export was pearls until oil was discovered. Kuwait has a Sunni leadership, as did Iraq under Sadam. Sadam and the Iraqi Sunni’s are a minority in Iraq. So reverse rolls and place white Baptist in the North and white Catholics in the South and let’s call the Sunni’s Blacks that are secular, with no other diversity in the country. In this case the Blacks (the in power minority) wanted to invade Kuwait to do what? Take over the gulf oil riches and group with the Blacks in Kuwait who didn’t want to change a “good thing” they have. Just for purposes of debate consider the reversal of rolls and think of the “power” and domination it would take for the black minority to hold power in America.

Then you say you are willing to put your life on the line to keep the Iraqi blacks from monopolizing the Kuwait black guys good thing. Why because you feel sorry for the Kuwait black guys or it’s unfair? We didn’t go to war for that unfairness we went to war because the Iraqi Blacks wanted to control the main part of gulf oil production for the world. That is an American interest worth fighting for! Kuwait isn’t our ally although it is a former protectorate of Great Britain and is no way property belonging to Iraq in the past. The Blacks in Kuwait support the Palestinians equally to Sadam in the eradication of Israel. Our only interest was status quo in the world oil supply. So you were killed in the Gulf War keeping Sadam form taking over a very large slice of the pie of world oil. Then back in Iraq pending defeat a deal was brokered to disarm verses finishing the “root of the problem” the guy wanted and had the overwhelming power to take over the oil fields. Agreement signed as sure as the Korean Conflict or the US Civil War. But the guy didn’t live up to the contract and still wanted to display power to overpower neighbors while being relieved of responsibility of the original cause.

There was no openness to the UN to comply and only cooperation when overwhelming force was on his doorstep. Sadam had bought the UN and public opinion and was about as contained as North Korea is by China, S. Korea and Japan but S. Korea has no oil. You can’t see you died for nothing? As soon as he sells the UN he is illegal arms free he is once again off to the races to do what and no country can legally touch him until he does? After 9-11 a sane US leader couldn’t gamble the pay offs and the desire for oil domination wouldn’t cause him to align with the enemy of his enemy. And, if you look at the Blacks now being supported by the OBL clerics in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria with suicide bombers you can only come to one conclusion, that they are a team. Attempts have been made on the royal Saudi family and radical clerics in the minority of Iran that harbor OBL members fleeing from Afghanistan help. The goal to expel America and Britain and the Black minority with support of OBL clerics will take over the entire gulf oil and control the world economy. So did you die for nothing?

No, because I "died" to marginalize Saddam, and any problem he may have posed. This Iraq War was just "icing on the cake", and really, really costly icing at that.



Is it? The cost of petrol can now be measured in lives? Thankfully, I had never thought of it as being solely for that. I always felt it had something to do with the delicate balance in the Islamic world, especially the MidEast. Also, compared to this war, Desert Storm (Gulf Coast 1) was a relatively short, smooth operation that involved far less nation-building, manpower, and taxpayer money. The longer time we spend occupying, and I did mean to say occupying, the more issues come up. (For instance, Abu-Ghraib prison scandal, back-door draft, unhappy National Guardsmen)

Also, going back to what we were saying about Allawi, I'm sorry I misread your post, thinking you referred to the PM when you said the President. Regardless though, it is still pertinent to the discussion about the validity and true independence of the interim government.

Think about what you are saying! Nothing had changed as a result of your death; Sadam still had his ambition and was only waiting to be released from sanctions. I agree it is costly in people and dollars but what choice do we have?



Yes it is! Because Americans look at oil need like cellophane covered T-bone steak in the supermarket. They approach it from a PETA sympathy viewpoint; kill no animals to get the meat, no killing for meat in my neighborhood. Or, tear down the hydroelectric plants so the fish can swim freely, no to coal, nuclear, hydro, thermal steam power plants. Punch no holes in the pristine Alaska nature preserve! No windmills they kill birds, the neighbors in AZ complained solar panels were ugly and demand their removal. We want the light to come on in the refrigerator at 2:00AM for a cold drink and 250 Clydesdales under the hood but the gas problem is the gas stations problem to make magically appear.

In Desert Storm we only killed the Catholic sacrifices, the peacemeal divisions commanded by one or two diehard blacks allowing last minute choices of how to die to the Catholics. The tanks from our forces either met trenches with white flags or lowered the V-blade and planted them in the sand like flower bulbs at 35MPH.

Our ambition is not to occupy Iraq it is to clip the claws of the cat and have status quo. The alternative is mini nukes; kinda like Black Flag to exterminate the Blacks hornet nest without making the gas glow in the dark.

Ridiculous and tiresomely naive. The puppet government theory is the only theory, because we did not go into Iraq for Freedom and Democracy, which is LAME and too expensive for the desired outcome, nor WMD as we well know. It is a resource war. Its really time people get this understood because its not the last one, nor has it been the first, but will only escalate from now.
If people choose to have their heads in the sand and think of ' the goodness', 'of sweet americans', who want to 'rain down on oppressed nations the freedoms and democracy they enjoy, like butterflys on a field of wildflowers', they are out of their minds.
This is oil. No freaking butterfly matter, and dont think we would have ever invaded any Discombobuludistan for human rights abuses, torture and killings or Freedom like we did Iraq, we never did. Get real and smart.



Wow, I like you when you get mad Sarge. Nice that we finally break through all the malarky, baloney and you know, cow dung. However our ambition IS to occupy Iraq clandestinely, and rule it clandestinely and slurp off the oil as spoils of war. We shall pay, kind of like the oil companies pay alaska. We shall NEVER allow Iraq an anti US government that would , lets say, privatize for Iraqis, Iraqi oil. Now that would be really foolish wouldnt it, after so many billion spent to "freedomize' them?

I am many things Artemise, but I have never in my life been called naive by those who know me.

Direct, perhaps too courteous for my own good, but not naive.

1. The fact that the primary motive for the Iraq war was not freeing the Iraqis (I agree, it wasn't) does not count out the fact that the US has accepted it as a secondary goal.


I would return that advice, though in the scheme of things I'm sure you are already smart.

Perhaps I should start another topic on things (though I have done at least three on the "blood for oil" issue before). It will be in the Foreign Policy forum and you can lay down your evidence/reasoning for believing the US is installing a puppet government in order to control Iraq's oil.

I'll be glad to hear it.

Turnea,

Allow me to apologise, with all due respect, I get a little heated at times and had been reading other threads as well, and responding to you in pms in between.

I just think you are always pounding the US as some nation of good deeds with no ulterior motives, and I find that totally absurd. The US has every ulterior motive going here, and its so obvious, except to those who choose to think its all just a peachy keen do-gooder movement, at $87 billion every three months.

I think the new coalition can only be good for Iraq. I hope something comes from it.

Thank you. This is precisely the point I was trying to make by bringing in Allawi's past with the CIA, etc. Sarge said that the UN sanctions were just lining the pockets of foreigners, and keeping it from the Iraqis (paraphrased), but that is likely the exact thing we will be doing. In this equation, WE are the foreigners you mentioned. Also, left out of his analogy with the meat covered with cellophane was the notion that the meat isn't ours.

I don't consider the US a nation totally without ulterior motives. I do practice a toned down form of innocent until proven guilty however.

I don't proscribe ulterior motives without evidence.

It is as easy to say "war for oil" as it is to say "war for freedom" (which I agree is an almost amusingly transparent propaganda effort).

What separates the theory from the fact is the evidence. I don't see that a puppet government in Iraq is feasible. I don't believe we have (or could ever have been expected to have) sufficient control over the situation to make it work.

I am slow to accuse the administration of mass murder and undermining the new government of Iraq without evidence.

To you it is obvious, to me it is only one of a range of possibilities waiting to be proven.

Edited to add:

I don't get this one. I remember when calls to privatize Iraq oil were greeted with cries that it was part of a US plot for control. Now they don't want to privatize?

It seems to me it would be easier for the US to manipulate private oil companies who only answer to the bottom line than to control Iraqi politicians who answer to a suspicious population.

Well I do believe it is all about oil for if we were worried about people there are African warring factions we could have intervened that didn’t have capabilities of roadside IED’s to deter our mission. I’m not familiar with the Alaska-oil exchange factor. Oil companies are indeed very strong and of course to use a mid east oil example related to the topic BP has large holdings in Kuwait. But, I’m not so sure they, GB have Kuwait as a puppet and maybe more so as an ace in the hole. The inclusion or exclusion of the Sunni’s in a new government will have little to do with how oil is managed or the people of Iraq prosper from oil. The Sunni’s are a minority and unless they win their quest by killing other majorities and again run the government exclusively they will be a small player. If they win power through the insurgency then we, the US will have to go back in and fight them again.


Oil produced in Alaska or any place outside of the mainland US is world oil open to the nearest market on the bid price floated to the nearest customer. As I understand it most Alaska oil goes to Japan and then we receive oil from Venezuela in a similar manner from the south.

Our foreign policy in Venezuela is equal to Iraq and mid east, America’s interest in oil. Perhaps the only difference is the proximity of Israel as it concerns Iraq. You can’t fight oil lands with nukes and they have the money to buy them to hurt your interest, which will make decisions on Iran interesting.

I think Bush saw a situation coming like the Iran hostage during the Carter administration and said let’s face it now.

Fairplay-PA I will refer you to my comments above and just say with the analogy of the meat people still want to eat it or, in the case of oil consume it in quantities America can’t produce. Oil prices are bid on a world market and had Sadam controlled a big chunk he could double the price in 15 minutes at his will. If you don’t believe me follow DOW Jones ticker symbols BP & EP as anything from a cold nor’easter to a pipeline being blown up in Iraq. Do your research well on these tickers and you can make some jingle.

I read that while the Sunni majority are being discouraged through intimidation from voting, the Southern Shia minority vote may be disproportionately high to exploit this.

Seems like many are looking for an excuse to dispute the vote.

Fledgling democracies face remarkable challenges - just look at Uganda after British independence and the fate of President Sadat of Egypt.

A coalition, if achieved, would be a good thing as it would better demonstrate representing a broader cross section of Iraqis.

Good point, britusbrit, except you have it wrong who is in the minority....the Sunnis are the minority (hence the "Sunni Triangle" of unrest). The Sunnis (Saddam's sect) enjoyed many benefits under Saddam at the expense of the Shia majority. There is a buzz in the blogosphere over the suppression of Sunni votes and whether or not the elections should be tinkered with to ensure an "adequate" number of Sunnis get elected. Iraq Rejects U.S. Talk of Adjusting Vote Result

Back to the original question: Is this a major breakthrough on the way to creating a stable democracy in Iraq or is it something less than that?

I think cooperation between disparate groups is a positive sign. It basically amounts to a multi-cultural political Party (although it is called a coalition of political parties...).

If these people can work together, that bodes well for the future of Iraq, in which these different opinions and ideas must come together and work together in order to succeed.

Sarge, I think we basically agree that this is indeed a "blood-for-oil" equation. From what I you say, this is justifiable because of our heavy consumption of petrol, and subsequent reliance on foreign oil. What reasons do you offer for continuing a non-sustainable path, such as the route we have taken in Iraq, rather than working to develop alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, and hydro?

I also gather that you are economically savvy, which should grant you with insight regarding how much more economically stable it is to rely on a source that is not only renewable, but doesn't cost you large sums of money to remove from the ground for every last kilowatt of energy you produce.

Seems like one of the fundamental issues may be on its way to being solved. However the main one is will the international community accept the outcome of the election as fair? The media will be able to and may be motivated to seize on hundreds of likely injustices that occur. Hopefully they will report in a balanced way.

Likewise will the international community accept a second election if the first has issues or is this a one shot thing.

How's Afghanistan doing?

I beg to differ. Iraq DID disarm and the country's officials said so.

They pleaded to be believed to no avail.

That's why no WMD's have been found. In fact, despite all the nefarious claims emanating from the Bush White House about Iraq's nuclear programs, drones that could be launched from the Atlantic and Saddam's tons of biologicals, not even trace elements of those so-called biological elements have been found.

Iraq did disarm. And I believe the Bushies knew this.

But they wanted their war and they wanted Iraq's oil.

I don’t think it matters whether Iraq disarmed or not. The point was Sadam postured himself defiant to the world community, pretended to continue to possess the power to overpower his neighbors and could have prevented war by merely showing freely he didn’t possess WMD’s. The only logical conclusions a sane person could come to for non-compliance was he had WMD’s as the world intelligence sources thought he did at the end of the Gulf War, or he wanted everyone to think he had WMD’s because he feared his country would be attacked from another country or he was a madman.

Now you seem intelligent and impressionable so consider enduring a little logic. If Sadam had disarmed why didn’t he send his mad scientist out of country as requested? Why did he demand 24-hour notice for UN inspection teams to visit facilities? Why didn’t he just say you might go freely to any place you desire at any time, I have nothing to hide? Logically one could conclude only three reasons, 1) he had WMD’s hidden someplace or 2) he wanted everyone to believe he did or 3) he was a madman. Do you think Sadam felt vulnerable had the world learned he had no WMD’s? Do you think he feared being attacked by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Turkey had they found out the tiger had no teeth? Logic and common reason would dictate by freely showing he possessed no WMD’s through full-unfettered access his country would have been released from sanctions. Considering freedom from sanctions would mean he could buy or build any weapon, from nuclear, bio, chemical or whatever his little dictator heart would desire why not show he was clean and be restored to an unsanctioned nation that no one could invade for cause? Leaves madman or I want to continue to invade and intimidate neighbors at my will if you conclude he had proven he didn’t have WMD’s. Prez Bushie says, I don’t want to trust America’s security to a madman so do you or do you just respect Sadam’s word as LAW? It wasn’t the world’s responsibility to prove Sadam had WMD’s it was his to prove he didn’t. Explain why he just didn’t do such a simple requirement!

Maybe the path of least resistance for Bush is not to take precious SUVs away, fund alternative energy sources or apply appropriate impact taxes on gasoline, but to preserve a status-quo ensuring the continued flow of cheap oil.

The pro-Detroit/trucker industry lobbyists have their hooks in deep and the electoral system sadly involves spending as a major factor (in the UK TV political adverts are limited to an equivalent number of party political broadcasts so it's not a contest to buy the most TV coverage). Elections and high political office should not be the exclusive domain of the super rich. Bush may be unable to make the right move due to these committments.

By comparison taking out Saddam and polarizing people selectively around evildoers with oil has become acceptable.

It must be said that the US makes major contributions with its military where there is no oil:
- it's ships were the first on the scene delivering aid after the Tsunami
- the US did perform military intervention in the artificial famine in Somalia in the early 90s, a nation with no oil

The American electorate's taste for foriegn military intervention seems to have grown like a frog being gradually boiled in water without there being a real understanding of the facts.

Some election reform resulting in better representation of the people, or dare I say it "better Democracy" in the US might be in order before spreading democracy elsewhere.

Turnea..and Sarge, perhaps a 'puppet government' is too strong a wording.

I think the US will contain Iraq fundamentally 'under our thumb', whether that be economically or otherwise. I dont see true freedom for Iraq, such as an anti-US pro Islamic fundamentalist government that perhaps decides to nationalise ( I meant to say, not privatize) Iraqi oil and kick out US oil companies and close US bases, its never going to happen without all out full fledged war, carpet bombing and start over.

Even the US, with its grand (alleged) ideology of spreading Freedom and Democracy does not spend upwards of $280 billion dollars just to free people and leave them to their own devices. That kind of investment comes with a pay-off, even government is a business for those who run the show. Especially this admin which has very vested interests.

Sarge, those things have been debated a long time. Saddam did actually allow weapons inspectors in, anywhere they wanted to go, dont you remember? Hans Blix asking for more time etc, but that was not going to change anything, we were invading, but its the meat of another thread.

This new coalition may have the seeds of a really good thing, but I am a bit cynical about Iraq. I am worried we are going to see an all out civil war before its all over.

Iraqis dont know anything about democracy, and to borrow something I read, dont know that campaign promises are meant to be broken and not everyone can have their way at once. Its a power struggle with a deep past and a currently violent nature. Im thinking something akin to Bosnia/Kosovo...but we dont have UN support.

I’ll leave the argument of who’s fault on the floor of the Senate and leave it at that since it has nothing to do with this topic.

Yes we will get something for the loss of life and investment of capitol as you say. I don’t think the US will build permanent bases or consider hanging around like in Korea or Germany in the case of Iraq. A large chunk of the 87 Billion went to removing bases from Saudi Arabia from the sacred sand.

The only hope in avoidance of civil war is the Sunni tribe joining in the government. Not only joining but also helping to identify and remove the insurgents. Because the folks from the majorities of north and south are probably wanting some hair from the dog that bit them about now. The dog continues to bite every day, a dog from the minority of the minority. If the minority doesn’t heel the dog the elected majorities will wipe out the minority.

The only other way I could envision a civil war not happening would be for the new government to hire brutal mercenaries to black flag the insurgency. These guys would have to enter neighborhoods and torture those unwilling to freely speak to the level of fear of they have from the insurgency. The current limits of rules of engagement only see the Sunni’s winning through attrition of will. Equal force must be applied as the insurgency applies or the insurgency wins. We don’t want, nor will we allow the insurgency to win so it has to be brute force, civil war where Sunni’s get wiped out or the Sunni’s have to help identify insurgents to save themselves.

I think a government similar to Turkey could be established if all parties work together

...and what leads you to believe that this would be the result of "true freedom" for Iraq?

In a number of polls Iraqis have said they don't want a theocracy, and this is being borne out buy their candidates for election.

Shiites rule out clerics in top Iraqi leadership
This syncs with Ayatollah Sistani's known commitment to clerical non-interference in politics. Certainly when compared to Iran , this will be not fundamentalist state.

In addition Iraqi oil remains government-owned and I've seen no talk by Iraqi leaders of changing that situation.

As for bases, I've head (I forget where, I think DTOM posted it) that the US is not planning to set up permanent bases.

So I seen no real reason to think Iraq's government will be under our thumb or unresponsive to Iraqi concerns.