[Riemann]

I may be all wet on this, but didn't we confound the experts on Afghanistan by using local warriors to do a lot of the ground fighting while we provided air power and special forces, thereby defeating the unbeatable Afghan tribesmen with low casualties on our side.

What if we said to the Kurds and the Shias, hey remember those guys that gassed whole villages, raped your women, tortured and murdered your fathers, brothers and children, well they're holed up here, here and here. Now this is basically your country to run, but we think it would be in your interest to "deal" with these guys. You can keep whatever you capture and deal with your prisoners anyway you like. We will provide ground and air support at no cost to you.

It would be better to have Iraqis do the nasty, close in fighting, because they will not be held to ridiculous standards of conduct (Col. West) like we would be I also think it would be good for the Iraqis to significantly contribute to the process of creating a shiny new and free country for themselves. Nothing like a little bloodshed to a sense of ownership.

[lainde]

Very sound tactic! Hope someone is listening...

[carl in alaska]

That's not a bad idea, except that we're trying to prevent warfare between the competing factions in Iraq so that the country will be more united as we phase out our involvement. Another thing to keep in mind is that we already have vastly more firepower than Saddam's insurgents. But the insurgents are few in number and difficult to find. We need much better intelligence, not more soldiers on our side.

[Semper Paratus]

It would be better to have Iraqis do the nasty, close in fighti

Success needs the Iraqi's to go in and clean the scum out of their country or exterminate them.

The quicker an Iraqi security infrastructure is put in place the better.