But what does dominance in Iraq mean, in a practical sense? Since Iraqis produce nothing of value (like any Muslim dominated society), this means the various Islamic groups are fighting over control of the oil supply.Note this also takes care of the restoration of "hayba," i.e., our "reputation for awesomeness--that America lost in Vietnam," as Steven L. puts it.
Basically, and oddly, the only people in Iraq right now who are NOT fighting for the oil are the Americans.
For the US to win in Iraq, Islam needs to lose very visibly and in a way that is obvious to all. Logically, then, the only way to "win" in such a visible manner is to permanently seize the oil wells and pump them dry. Those wells and infrastructure that cannot be seized and safely held should be destroyed. Those Muslims who cooperate with us, and help us protect the oil fields, can receive some of the "loot." The Kurds, for instance, could be given some wells for playing nice. But those Muslim groups and tribes who don't make nice, can either live quietly on dates and goat milk, or die for Allah while charging the barbed war perimeter--their choice.
Of course, we could also get that back (even more than we already have, thanks to Mr. Bush) by leaving, if it came to that, with a bang, so to speak.
Over Iranian nuclear facilities, intelligence offices, Revoutionary Guard barracks, naval bases, air bases, etc.
That would do it.
 Stendec's comment on "The dismaying General Petraeus." By Hugh Fitzgerald, Jihad Watch, 7/15/07 (as amended by later comment).
 Comment on "The dismaying General Petraeus." By Hugh Fitzgerald, Jihad Watch, 7/15/07. We don't think Vietnam caused us to lose that reputation. Jimmy Carter caused us to lose that, first and foremost, followed by Reagan and Clinton. Another story.