One other little matter. Your policy might cause a regime change in Saudi Arabia, and cause it to become a fanatical anti American state, and a host of terrorist perps. I guess we would need to send in the troops there. How large an increase are you proposing for the American army, and how will we secure the "surge" of additional bodies? Doubling or tripling the pay, or the draft, or what? The military other than the airplane and boat services, can barely meet their quotas now. Not to put too fine a point on it, it (your policy) is all quite insane. In any event, insane or not, it won't happen, so maybe getting real, do you have an opinion about the Plan B issue that I posed to jervitas, who has taken a break, apparently?
It "might" cause a regime change in Saudi Arabia, but that would depend on the willingness of the Saudi Royal family and their detainers to die rather than fight to the death in a civil war.
Far more likely would be that Islamists within Saudi Arabia would go ballistic as the Sunni Arabs were systematically driven out of Iraq, and try to move against the government, provoking a very violent crackdown by the monarchy against the insurgents. This makes things miserable for the Saudis, but also makes it damned hard for the Saudis to sit back and use their money to export terrorism.
In any case, we have very little leverage over there now, and once our surge has wilted and the insurgency in Iraq renews, the very thing you're wondering about will come to pass. Already the Sunni Arab population in Iraq has dwindled from a pre-war 10% of the population to about 9% of the population. Sunni Arabs are leaving the country. The Shi'ites hate them and are going to fight this civil war.
The difference is that my "insane" plan (it's not just my plan, you know, I'm not just making this all up out of my hat) has the Shi'ites doing it armed and controlled by the government, which is distinctly Arabist and focused on its own position in Iraq. They would be OUR bad guys. Instead, if we do nothing and refuse to support that faction, the Iranian armed and organized Shi'ite faction will do the fighting and dirty work, and dominate the country.
Either way you get the Sunni subjugation. The difference is that if it's OUR guys doing it, you get a government that is relatively allied with us at the end. If it's not (and under our current strategy, it won't be), you get a pro-Iranian Shi'ite government. The Sunnis get creamed, in time, no matter what, and the very problem you're worried about in Saudi Arabia arises no matter which path we take.
We can anticipate it, of course, and arm the Saudi government against it.
In general, it is a stupid thing for US to be fighting these Arab civil wars. Arabs need to be fighting them. There are plenty of young Arabs itching for a fight. We choose the side we need to win and arm them so that they do.
You are arguing over what is POSSIBLE, when you should be arguing over what is NECESSARY.
Our present war policy guarantees defeat, both tactical and strategic.
My war policy, articulated here over and over again since 9/12/01, is the raising of and Army, Navy, and Marine Corps of sufficient size and ground combat power to conquer, occupy, and reconstruct all of Arabia and Pakistan.
Everyone always jumps on me by pointing out that the People would never accept such a policy. Fine.
But the reality of the war which has been declared against us has ZERO to do with what our People will accept or consent to. The war will go on, whatever we do or don't do, or whoever holds power in Washington, until we are defeated or they are defeated.
Our impending defeat in Iraq is only a battle, that's true.
But it will provide the fuel for an enormous expansion of enemy battle capability.
Torie, your reasoning goes like this:
We need a draft to field an army and marine corps of sufficient size to win.
But, if we do that, Republicans will be unpopular.
THEREFORE, what we are willing to do will be sufficient.
Unfortunately, that just doesn't follow.