Embar,
"cut and run" is pretty politically charged, in fact I'd be pretty interested to see any military handbook with the "cut and run" strategy placed in it. What I was suggesting was simply that the role of the US would significantly change given my estimation that the security role played by the 20k+ private security contractors would not be able to be absorbed by the military - especially given that's approximately the number of extra troops the surge brought in which is well acknowledged as unsustainable.
Blackwater itself seems to be primarily employed by the US government to protect military and quasi-military assets. There is absolutely no way that would be entrusted to any Iraqi organization.
Looking through the "options" more closely:
New security from the Iraqi population
Most security is *from* the embedded insurgents within the Iraqi population. Trying to recruit security from the same pool of people you are protecting yourself from is, well, pointless. This act alone would give AQI the ability to strike pretty much whatever they want whenever they wanted. Add that to the fact that no matter what security you hire that is not US military, it will still be subject to Sharia and Iraqi law, the whole equation becomes a lot more unstable.
Re-prioritization of military asset allocation
Exactly what I said originally - the military would have to abandon some of its current posts to protect the things that were originally guarded by these mercs. The number of troops is finite and this sort of job is seriously going to put a squeeze on what they can respond to and how. Hence my argument that you may as well chuck in the military thing and move to something else.
Integration of tribal support for projects that directly affect local tribes (which I think would be great)
It sounds good until you realize that this sort of thing is undercutting the goal of a central unity government. If you're suggesting that Iraqi governance should now be divested of any sort of central control and be meted out to the tribes to deal with as they see fit then you may as well toss the military mission out and forget Baghdad. In fact, this whole suggestion is essentially the re-establishment of localized militias that started the whole sectarian fighting in the first place. When the central government decides to prosecute a tribe when their local militia steps over the line (which is going to happen), can you imagine the consequences? Exactly which side would the US back?
This is the core problem with the "success" in Anbar at the moment - so the tribes are helping agianst a common enemy, sure. Then what?
A whole lot of other options that always emerge in a changing dynamic.
Right, but all the options boil down to less security, less stabilizing forces and less certainty. Sure it's good that the Iraqi government is asserting itself, but I'm not entirely sure this whole thing is going to work out the way the US wants it to.
As for "the momentum will continue in the same direction"... what momentum and what direction?
Dd
