We're choosing sides in Iraq's civil war ...

It's obvious, isn't it? We—the U.S.—are allying with the Sunnis to counter the Shiite-Iranian connection. We've already partnered with the Kurds.

This is the part of the surge that is working ... well, in the sense of protecting our strategic objective of securing access to the oil.

And the Democratic politicians know better than to pin their hopes on the rational nature of the American citizen en masse. If the Middle East dissolves into chaos and the Republicans can in any way hang a following economic upheaval amongst the gas-guzzling masses on the Democrats ... well, Katie bar the door, folks ...

You can see the leadership of Defense Secretary Gates in tandem with James Baker behind the scenes in the current strategy. We are pursuing stability in our interest by aligning with those groups that need us to gain or hang onto power and territory: the Kurds and the Sunnis. We are establishing ourselves in the periphery of the Shiite area to keep the outcome under control.

We can say to the Shiah leaders, "We gave you a chance to govern democratically, and you blew it. We will now use the realpolitick of power politics to keep a lid on the area."

What we are not admitting (or at least President Bush isn't) is that we so bungled the post-war period that the Iraqis never had a real chance to make their country work. We did not occupy the country with sufficient forces to counter the inevitable anti-occupation insurgency ... quickly attracting Al Qaida to the conflict. This was a result of the Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon cabal's echo chamber policy making.

And President Bush is again screwing up the policy by cheerleading with a ridiculous kick-butt posture ... He really doesn't have a clue about what's happening ... just like he didn't when Cheney-Rumsfeld were in charge ... the BIG difference is in who is driving policy now.

It's a Gates-Baker process. And it is in accord with the strategic objectives of the U.S.

The Democrats had better get on board.