Where did you get that stat, that Iraq is 9% non Kurdish Sunni? I thought the numbers were more like 60% Shia, 25% Sunni Arab, and 15% Kurdish.
Fair point. Remembered numbers, and as I look back at them (in the CIA factbook) I see misremembered: 65% Shia, 32% Sunni, 3% Christian and other.
As I reflect a moment on this, I recall where the full number I used came from.
Follow me here, because it's not crazy. It fits into my view of what the war really is.
Of the 32% that are Sunni, 15% are Kurds, which means that 17% are Sunni Arab. Now, I have read articles that the population of Sunni Arabs has declined by 1% since the war started (mostly due to emigration), but here was the key thing that stirred the 9% figure:
We are in the Arab world here. MALES are the issue. Sunni Arab WOMEN are not planting bombs, blowing people up, etc.
It's the men that are the problem, specifically the military age males from about 15 to about 65. And THAT works out to be about 9% of the population, roughly. THAT is the herd we need to thin. Thin out the military age males, and you will bring peace. If there were a peaceful way to do that without wreaking hell, well then that would be great.
There isn't, so women and children end up suffering and dying too. Unfortunately. Arabs don't put their women out there to fight. They don't LET them fight.
If we were talking Tennessee, then 18% of the population really is 18%. But we're talking the middle east, Islamist, male-dominated. 18% of the population MEANS 9%, maximum, potential combattants, and really less than that.
The women are hors combat.
The males are the problem.
Still, that's not a legitimate move to make without EXPLAINING it, and not only didn't I EXPLAIN it, I actually remembered my 9% figure and applied it to the whole population of Sunni Arabs. That is a significant error.
To win, we need to let the Shi'ite males go in there and kill a lot of Sunni Arab males, and in the process drive about 18% of the population out...or cause the Sunni Arab males to fold their hand when the pain for their dependents gets too great.
Anyway, it's 2 AM. Gotta go. It's been interesting.
I agree with you that doing what I suggest is immoral.
We're where we are because we DIDN'T use massive, overwhelming force at the start. We went light. It got away from us, and not politics in the US prevents us from going heavy. It's a complete catastrophe, really.
In the face of this, my firm conviction for all future actions is this: if there is not a formal declaration of war by Congress, I oppose military operations. Period.
Without that declaration, we can't dust off the World War II precedents and go for the jugular. And we end up in duck soup. Duck soup prolongs war and kills a lot of people (maims more). Very bad.
Losing is devastating.