> The surge of American forces allowed Maliki to strengthen the
> authority
> of the state and its security forces, while the establishment of the
> Awakening groups neutralised anti-government Sunni militias (in some
> cases simply by paying them salaries not to fight the state). The
> decline in sectarian violence gave Maliki space to weaken competing
> Shiite militias, who had been integral to cleansing Sunnis from mixed
> areas and establishing Shiite dominance but whose presence prevented
> his fully consolidating control.
>
> The prevailing order in Iraq today is a Shiite-dominated one, but the
> balance of power is not divided along exclusively sectarian lines: it
> is between those close to the state and those without its backing as
> some wags put it, between the powers that be and the powers that
> arent.
>
> Maliki has pursued a divide-and-conquer strategy among Sunnis,
> rewarding some local leaders with prestige and privileges while
> arresting or crushing others. Many Sunnis are more than willing to
> accept an authoritarian prime minister in exchange for a reduction in
> violence.
Yup. Does anyone remember, back in the days of intense Iraqi civil warfare, the little Lenins around here who insisted that all the bloodletting was a devious and brilliant plot by the American occupiers? It was divide and rule, you see. Iraqis would never dream of fighting each other unless they were somehow manipulated into it by the hidden hand of imperialism. The Americans wanted to make sure a strong Iraqi state would never emerge, so they were happy to encourage the country to disintegrate. As for Washington's claims that they were actually trying to stop the civil war (because it was actually a big fucking problem for them, just as it looked like on TV) - well, you wouldn't believe an imperialist, would you?
See the thread "Qaeda at Work" from Nov. 2006: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2006/2006-November/thread.html#23269
SA