He is using the Muslim technique of taqiyya.
WE must not allow Iraq to become another Iran even if the IRAQIS want it. WE sacrificed to many troops for these ingrates to turn against us. Who cares what they want?
US interests should be put ahead of Wilsonian Idealism.
All very well to accuse Sistani of dissembling to us. But there will be others to deal with, even when we have withdrawn. All those ink-stained fingers to deal with . . .The very diversity of Iraq makes it impractical to impose a Shiite state; the Kurds and Sunnis together are, I think, about 40% of the population and would unite in opposition. Unless the Shiites establish a system like that of our inner-city Democrati Party, that won't work. And even then, the congress which is being forged in the current vote-counting will have to have the consent of the Sunni and the Kurds for whatever constitution they propose. It won't be a simple majority vote situation, any more than it was in the adoption of the US Constiution.
Because civil war would remain an option, and that would open Pandora's Box of foreign intervention - not only by the US but also by the neighbors. No, trust but verify - but the Shiites have a limited hand to play, and seem to be doing the right thing with it.
Like it or not, the conflict is not of religions or the forms of government. The conflict is between the civilizations. Historically, in such conflicts, one civilization perishes and the other one survives (survives, not wins!)
To prevail in this type of conflict, one has to accept that the world order will change, international bodies may disintegrate, the old alliances may (and will) dissolve, the new agreements will be reached.
The civilization least encumbered by the ballast of the current world infrastructure and ethics is the one most likely to win. Denial of the fact that the West will not be able to win the current conflict without major changes to its current morals and infrastructure will result in the death of our civilization. Any civilization that starts to pursue its security while objecting to taking any risks is in the stage of decline and will be replaced by the more aggressive, albeit more barbaric and a primitive one.
These types of upheaval have happened before, they may happen again. To think that simply giving people the opportunity to decide how they want to be governed will solve the problem is idealistic. The objective is to incapacitate the opposition, ensure its inability to resurge, and then to impose such an order on it that would make it more profitable for it to cooperate then oppose. The Rome did it, China did it, the British Empire did it. They have been defeated by internal politics, isolation and inability to adapt to the changed world.
The WOT has only started and Iraq (or Middle East, for that matter) is only a small part of the problem. Besides, the real alliances have not been formed yet, we don't even know what position Europe will take in the oncoming conflict (they have lost whatever influence they had and would like to gain some of it back.) The conflict of a magnitude of the Cold War is starting and the sooner we realize it, the better.
We should give a good thought as to how to build up our own base that would allow us to effortlessly maintain a huge military force and to continue to remain the strongest economic and scientific power in the world. Once that is taken care of, we'll be able to persuade our enemies to agree with us much easier. I'm not talking just about America, the new alliance would include any country willing to maintain or adopt, shall we say, Anglo-American ideology.