Ummm....why on earth would we want to start a de-stabalizing civil war in a country we are trying to stabalize?
Stabalization wouldn't be a problem. Or actually...let me argue this from another direction. IF stability is your goal, then why don't we put 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq? I have 3 friends who've served in Iraq. None of them have been told that they need to return there. So I know from personal experience that there are soldiers here in the US who could be re-assigned to Iraq...but who are not being re-assigned. Perhaps you gentlemen know some people also where this the case.
Without enough people to police the grounds, we will never see a stable Iraq. So why haven't we sent more troops? Well, because I think that an unstable Iraq serves a number of purposes. As long as fighting is going on in Iraq, you will have Jihadis (Islamic fighters...from lots of different countries) coming to fight in Iraq against the "evil American invaders". This means that Jihadis who would normally be blowing up stuff in Chechnia, Bosnia, Israel, London, Paris...maybe even places like Brazil or the United States, are not doing so. They have a place to fight. Iraq. Iraq is not part of the United States. American buildings and American citizens (contractors excepted) are not being blown up. We are giving would be and professional terrorists a theatre in which to fight us. We don't want to "win"...or begin to appear like we are savagely beating the insurgency because once that happens, the terrorists abroad will stop coming there. Better by far to make the terrorist think that they have half a chance of winning. That way they'll commit resources, send people, use up their money, and get killed...all inside Iraq. Not in the US, or Britian, or other places around the world.
That's one purpose. Another purpose is to keep Iran from taking over huge chunks of Iraq. The Shi'a population in Iraq is going to be at least somewhat sympathetic to Shi'a led Iran. Keeping the whole situation in flux means we don't end up with stability...stability that would be entirely in the favor of Iran.
Also...the example I cited with the two SAS officers puts a bad light on Britian, not necessarily on the United States. Britian could be playing her own game in Mid East politics. It's never safe to assume that just because the US is allied with another nation that our ally is always going to be in lockstep with us. The British had a hand in Iraqi politics long before we got there. Maybe they are playing a double game. Doubtful...but you can't dismiss it until proven otherwise.
I think too that our administration realizes that installing a democracy in Iraq just isn't going to work. The Kurds have struggled too long to have a separate nation and they aren't going to voluntarily give up that dream. Sunnis and Shias have got a lot of "payback" built up over the last 30 years of Saddam's rule. The minute we leave; it starts. Factionalized fighting between Sunnis, Shi'as, and Kurds though would keep Iraq from building up to it's former level as a fighting force. Iraq would be a hell on earth, but the rest of the region around them would be largely safe...at least from Iraqi invasion. So I wouldn't doubt that some of the explosions were designed to "keep the pot boiling". We really don't want the Shi'a and the Sunni to unite against us. We saw how problematic that can be when Al-Sadr brought his followers into the field to fight us. So we don't need them both working together. Better we play on some of those old divisions...and keep them targetting each other, and not US troops.
And finally, I think that there is a lot of money being made by companies that supply the military. A stable Iraq would cause cut backs in supplies needed. If nothing else, they'd need fewer bullets.
But there are tons of other supplies that go along with keeping an army in the field. Also, instability is keeping the price of oil artificially high. If the conflict in Iraq was not occuring, and if the oil pipelines weren't being regularly blown up, you would see a tremendous drop in the oil price. Maybe even half as much as it is now. Oil companies recorded record profits this last quarter. 10 BILLION...with a "B"...dollars in PROFIT...not just sales...PROFIT. For ONE company. Exxon, I believe. That's a helluva lot of money. Without the instability in the Middle East, and particularly in Iraq...but also with threats to invade Iran...you wouldn't be seeing the price of oil stay high. At one point, a couple of years ago, everytime you saw a pipeline blow up, you'd see a spike in oil on Wall Street. That hasn't really stopped. If there was no oil in Iraq, do any of you believe that we would be investing half as much money and effort into Iraq?
Not really going to matter too much though. Historically, the US never stays as an occupier for more than about 6 years...Vietnam being an exception, but we had semi-good reasons in Vietnam. I think all of our troops will be out of Iraq in two years...and then we can watch it all fall apart.
