Siding with the Shia in Iraq's civil war

A day and a half ago, I wrote that the Shia option, "Stability First," was the most likely outcome of the current ISG/Bush administration reevaluation of strategy. Despite the post below about "one last push" on the current strategy, in the longer term, the Shia option in some form is the likely endpoint of US strategy in Iraq. It accepts the reality that the US can no longer shift the inertia of the conflict.

AS SECTARIAN violence rises in Iraq and the White House comes under increasing pressure to revamp its strategy there, a debate is emerging inside the Bush administration: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and, instead, throw its lot in with the Shiites?

A U.S. tilt toward the Shiites is a risky strategy, one that could further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and that could backfire by driving its Sunni population into common cause with foreign jihadists and Al Qaeda cells. But elements of the administration, including some members of the intelligence community, believe that such a tilt could lead to stability more quickly than the current policy of trying to police the ongoing sectarian conflict evenhandedly, with little success and at great cost.

Such a tilt could come in varying degrees. I would think the most likely would be a "stepping out of the cities" which would allow the Shia militias to consolidate (and ethnically cleanse) free of US interference, but maintaining the US/Sunni conflict in Anbar. (Watch for a shift in rhetoric using "Al Qaeda" much more.)

This is a very cold answer, but if withdrawal is not considered, and partition is a "non-starter," the "stability first" option is really the only thing left on the table.

(I would guess that the article below came about because of the "ugliness" of this option. The Bush administration thought they would float a trial balloon to see if they could give the current "balanced approach" one more shot before embracing this evil realism. (The other option is a failed state.))

The final outcome would be Shia dominance and the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis out into the western deserts.

How would the regional Sunni governments respond? What do the Saudis do with Shia militias just across their border? Will the Saudis and Syrians arm and equip the Sunnis? Does that create Al Qaeda in Iraq as the dominant Sunni political/militia force?

Later: Here's a sample of Saudi response, Saudi Arabia is experimenting with peaceful nuclear technology, Saudis to press ahead with Iraq border fence.

Later still: I guess we can figure out where CIA director Hayden falls in this argument. Al Qaeda in Iraq is committing "almost Satanic terror," and a doubt as to the possibility of any political solution.

Just in: CNN reports that John Abizaid has called for the deployment of 2,200 marines who had been in reserve to Anbar. No specifics. The Marines are attempting to retake Ramadi right now.