War Nerd kirjoitti osuvasti aiheesta kuinka amerikkalaisten miehitys Irakissa menee perseelleen . Money quotes:
Every chickenhawk on the air was moaning about how Bush Sr. and Colin Powell let Saddam get away in '91, how we shoulda gone in and taken Baghdad. Still think so? Let's see Michael Savage stand on a streetcorner in Fallujah sweating in a kevlar vest, jumping every time a car turns the corner. Let's see Bill O'Reilly do night patrol through Baghdad in a Humvee. In '91 we did it the way the Brits would've: neutralized the threat, then left and let Saddam try to pick up the mess. Sure we betrayed the Kurds and the Shiites along the way. That's what empires do. The most basic tactic for running an empire is using Tribe A against Tribe B: Kurds vs. Sunni, Sunni vs. Shiite, village vs. village. If one gets too strong you bleed it for a while. Then you let it bleed the others. After a while they're all bled out and your imperial troops are the only force in the country worth mentioning.
What the Brits would be doing about now is arming the Kurds and sending them to police the Sunni Triangle. The Kurds have already asked us to let them do it. They're begging for the chance to get a little payback. They said, "We guarantee we'll have the place pacified in a week. We can read these people! You can't! We can tell who's a guerrilla and who isn't! All we need is a few fingernail-pulling pliers and a portable generator hooked up to a cattle prod or two!"
Of course we won't let them, because it'd be messy, like Sabra-Shattila times ten. There'd be dead Sunnis thicker than sagebrush. But the Brits'd do it, and it'd work. Then, when the Kurds had bled the Sunnis out, they'd recruit a new police force, all Sunni and all-volunteer, to go police Kurdistan, bleed the Kurds for a while so they don't get too strong.