"Many Iraqis similarly see sectarianism as the work of the Americans. This is not entirely fair."

Maybe it is. Cockburn doesn't see-- or at any rate doesn't fully acknowledge-- that specific US policies helped create sectarian strife, and most of these policies effectively favored the Shia majority.

Why, to cite one obvious example, was the Iraqi army disbanded? What did they expect hundreds of thousands of soldiers to do, in a country rife with unemployment, go get jobs as case workers?

Years later Bremer, who issued the order to disband them, said he couldn't help it, Rumsfeld made him do it. Presumably Bush made Rumsfeld do it, and Cheney made Bush do it-- or maybe they left Bush out of the loop entirely.

(Of course, Bremer issued other poisonous orders that contributed to the breakdown of the social fabric; like holding that mercenaries, er, private contractors, could not be prosecuted by the government of Iraq. How did they expect that to go over?)

1.although I'm no great fan of John McCain, I want to note that his so-called robotic movements are due to his arms being broken when he was tortured by the Viet Cong. It's especially pronounced with the left arm, which he can no longer lift beyond about mid-chest high.

2.to "Real Name;" Ron Paul IS NOT a fascist. Although he has views on social issues like abortion and gay rights that don't sit well with many liberals, he voted against the patriot act(both times), against the Iraq war in 2002, and against the military commissions act in 2006. As far as civil liberties go, he's the real deal.

Gary kamiya is absolutely correct, I think, about the shared sense of complicity that large numbers of Americans feel.

(his analysis also suggests to me that Edwards, as a candidate who supported the war in 2002 and has since apologized for having done so, is more in tune with the zeitgeist than either Hilary Clinton or Obama.)

one thing though, which Kamiya doesn't explore, is the role of the press, who gladly fanned the flame of impeachment in 1998-99. They're a hell of a lot more complicit in the 2002-03 runup to the war than ordinary people, and often behave as if they're still in love with Bush. One of the practical problems with impeachment is the likelihood the national press will frame it as crazy or vindictive, functioning to douse impeachment talk, and I think Pelosi, et al, very understandably fear this.

sorry I missed it.

it occurs to me that the only reason the US might make "deals with tribal sheiks" is to divide and conquer the sunni, so that a coalition government is unlikely and an eventual partition comes to pass. I am operating on the premise that a relatively united sunni presence in negotiating a new constitution is more likely to result in an end of hostilities and a deal that's widely regarded as legitimate.

I hope the persons who make editorial decisions about including articles like this wont be discouraged by the dearth of letters-- this is an excellent article and I for one appreciate salon making it available.

even if I rarely offer a comment. Our snarky anonymous commenter who says "Leonard better get his numbers up pronto" is responding like a dolt.

HTWW undoubtedly attracts intelligent and sober readers who recognize when they're not necessarily knowledgeable enough about a given topic to offer a comment, and so don't do so. You don't need to know what regression analysis is to have an opinion about celebrity gossip, for example.

I guess I'll stick to clams and fish sticks for a while, and let the gourmets make fun of me.

given the plethora of models that the various cell phone companies offer, it seems inevitable that before long Moto or Nokia or one of any number of other manufacturers offers a competitor to the "Jitterbug" that you could get for a lot less than 150 bucks, with service from one of the more established wireless providers.

If all they have to offer is a simple interface with big buttons, Jitterbug has a doomed business model. It would be ironic if Samsung were prohibited by their contract from providing one of those competitors, as it's a matter of time before they start showing up in the market.

Dr Cole quotes Lugar as saying,

"I see no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy."

and adds,

Certainly, peaceful coexistence across sectarian lines in the Diyala province seems a goal unlikely to be achieved in the near or medium term.

Every time I hear a bigshot politician(D or R) blame the Iraqis for "not stepping up" I feel disgust. As Dr Cole has finally pointed out, the US has a policy of favoring the Shi'a in Iraq. Blaming the Iraqis for our having done all the things we have to predispose Iraq to a civil war is pretty convenient if you want to walk away and blame the conquered for having a wrecked country.

It's easier to wreck things and blame our victims-- what if the stated US policy was to have a cease-fire and negotiations?

Maybe this would work, or it would fail-- but if it failed it would be more clearly our fault, and-- even worse!-- we would look weak. Whereas if our policy is to keep bombing them into submission and that policy fails, then THAT can at least be spun as being the fault of savages we tried to civilize.