[Larry Lucido]

Second, the Shi’as in the southern third, the country’s plurality, should be allowed to build an autonomous Allahocratic polity—if that is indeed what they long for—and to enjoy the fruits of their own region’s oil wealth. At the same time they should be made aware of the price to be paid—including U.S.-sanctioned re-imposition of Sunni dominance—if Basra’s links with Tehran become too close for America’s comfort.

IOW, create another oil-rich wahabi-ruled state, and warn them to "be good, or else."

[traditionalist]

Not quite. Wahabis are Sunnis, not Shi'ites. A soft Shi'ite theocracy in Southern Iraq would not necessarily be anti-American, which is all we care about.

[Fee]

The grand scheme is to occupy Iraq which makes the movement of funds from Iran and in the past Saddam to the terrorist in Lebanon and Israel much harder. Iraq also serves as the basing area for the US to support the students in Iran to overthrow the mullahs. Once that happens a substantial amount of funds and arms going to terrorist groups will drop. The Shiite rebellion in Iraq will wither. The only major backer of terrorism in terms of finances left will be Saudi Arabia. She will be the last to taken down. Once that happens the war between the US and the Islamic terrorism will take a strategic turn in our favor. I think twenty plus years from now when the classified documents are available for scholars to study, they will have a conclusion similar to the one I just wrote. At least you read it first on the Free Republic. Time will tell.