One must get along with al-Sadr and the Shiites to have stability in Iraq. Even I can see that. Now, for another blunder", not Iraq's plan for Baghdad. America's plan for Baghdad. So much for "democracy", which we all knew was a joke anyway. A purple finger does not make a democracy. Freedom from foreign occupation helps, though.

"Divide and rule. A new counter-insurgency strategy to carve up the city into sealed areas. The tactic failed in Vietnam. So what chance does it have in Iraq?"

The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops."

The reason for this is, and the reason for the increased "surge" is revealed.

"But the campaign has far wider military ambitions than the pacification of Baghdad. It now appears that the US military intends to place as many as five mechanised brigades - comprising about 40,000 men - south and east of Baghdad, at least three of them positioned between the capital and the Iranian border. This would present Iran with a powerful - and potentially aggressive - American military force close to its border in the event of a US or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities later this year."

Cheney and McBush won't be happy until they have plunged the entire Middle East into war and alienated the world against the US. Their "legacy".

And some Democrat wants to be president after this. The mess, the hatred, the deficits, the ruined military.

Wow.

Arf