... there would be riots across the USA.
I have been saying since May 2003, that Bush & Co want to see civil unrest perpetuated in Iraq for as long as possible, as a justification for the continued US military presence (which Bush has now clearly stated will survive beyond his administration - no top Democrats are arguing against that, either).
From that perspective, the continuing civil unrest can be seen in a rather different light to the "ongoing sectarian tensions", a cliché which dictates the basic assumption of nearly all the Western media's narrative.
You can bang your head against a wall wondering why Bush hasn't fired Rumsfeld for his extraordinary incompetence (he just re-stated yesterday that Rumsfeld is "doing a fine job"), or you can realise that Rumsfeld's real "enemies" in Iraq are not the violent extremists who oppose democracy but the 87% or Iraqis who want to see US forces withdraw from their country.
You can bang your head against a wall trying to understand why Iraqis - Sunni or Shia - would seek to incite inter-tribal Civil War by bombing Samarra's Golden Dome, or you can realise that it is the Bush administration which ultimately profits from turning Iraqis against each other. Not only does this help reduce US fatalities, it also provides the perfect excuse for not withdrawing troops.
Mike Whitney says the US military is following a "divide and rule" strategy because (thanks to Uncle Donald) they do not have the resources for any other plan.
In a larger sense, the "alleged" sectarian violence is consistent with what we have seen in previous CIA-run operations in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Negroponte are alumna of those conflicts (which, according to Cheney, succeeded quite admirably) so it's probable that they would apply what they have learned about counterinsurgency to the ongoing war in Iraq. The El Salvador-experiment proved that the masses can eventually be terrorized into compliance.Whitney links to this Max Fuller article, which explores the history and methodology of the ‘Salvador Option’ in more detail:
Isn't that what is taking place in Iraq?
In Iraq, terror is being used as a substitute for security, because the United States has no intention of providing the manpower or funding needed to maintain order.
In Iraq the war comes in two phases. The first phase is complete: the destruction of the existing state, which did not comply with the interests of British and American capital. The second phase consists of building a new state tied to those interests and smashing every dissenting sector of society.