"But a main point of contention for Shiites is the Sunni guards now on the US military's payroll. Many Shiites refused to join a Shiite version of the US-sponsored guards program, saying it's the job of security forces – not individual former fighters – to keep the peace.
"I find the US military's solution foolish and simplistic … they are putting fuel next to fire," says Alaa Oweid, another lawyer, who has shunned the proposed reconciliation council. "What's the logic of rewarding the criminals by paying them, dressing them in uniforms, and telling them to protect the neighborhood?""
By the way, is it not curious how the U.S. media for the large part has conveniently ignored the so-called "friendship and cooperation treaty" signed by the U.S. and Maliki's government? It passed at a time when the majority of Iraqi parliament opposes an extension of US occupation without a clear timetable for withdrawal. I thought the American line all along was that improvement in security, if it can be called so, would signal the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, not extend it to years with plans for permanent bases and "investment" opportunities. Right?
Will the U.S. population and media conveniently go to sleep again when the time comes to wage the next war?