And the ghosts of U.S. servicemen cry out … and haunt the memory of a nation who sent them off to war without what they needed to win.

In Options for Iraq, I mentioned something that might have come as a surprise to readers.  The U.S. is under what is called by the U.N. Security Council a “security partnership� with the Iraqi government.  This explains what is so strange to some people, that al Maliki can balk at U.S. military actions against Muqtada al Sadr and cause a cessation of operations.  The U.S. in a very real way is subservient to the Iraqi government.  While it is customary among the main stream media to criticize the war, it is rather unusual to see honest, insightful commentaries on the nature of the problem.  The Washington Times recently had one in which they made these stunning remarks:

There wasn’t much Mr. al-Maliki could do to disband the Mahdi army. A blend of religious fanaticism and pitiless ambition, Sheik al-Sadr revels at U.S. discomfiture, a sort of Islamic Schadenfreude. He listens to the Aytollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s top Shia prelate, who has advised him to keep his powder dry against American forces. Meanwhile, he continues to build his army with Iranian funding and weapons, and training by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Iraq’s partition, into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish mini-states, as advocated by Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, the incoming Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is a recipe for a larger civil war. Most towns and villages have mixed Sunni and Shi’ite populations.

All sides anxiously await the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group’s findings. It is already common knowledge they will recommend talking to U.S. opponent Syria and U.S. enemy Iran. Members of ISG have already spoken to both. Iran now wields more influence in Iraq than the United States.

In Demonstrations, Violence and Preparations in al Anbar Province, I said, speaking of the Anbar Province, that “right now the U.S. is yet another tribe in a region where tribes have cut deals, aligned themselves for and against al Qaeda, and are defending themselves daily against Shia death squads … The demonstrations, the violence and the politics are all preparatory for when the U.S. presence is not determinative in the direction al Anbar takes.  Sooner or later, they apparently feel, the stronger tribe will be gone.”

I ascribed the position of “strongest tribe” to U.S. forces in Anbar.  If the commentary by the Washington Times is accurate, we are not even the strongest tribe any more.  We come in (a distant?) second to Iran.  Not surprisingly then, the U.S. State Department and Military are at odds with each other over whether to end the outreach to the Sunnis, while aligning themselves more strongly with the Shi’ites.  Indeed, this makes us look like the second strongest tribe looking for a political partner.

And the ghosts of U.S. servicemen cry out … and haunt the memory of a nation who sent them off to war without what they needed to win.