Someone has to ask the question. I guess it must be me. Would the world benefit from encouraging a Sunni-Shia war?
Maybe the U.S. should pull our troops back inside the Green line and let the Iraqis fight.
It would most likely be a long war, with millions of soldiers. Both sides would have to keep selling oil to pay for the war, but both sides would also be targeting the oil fields.
The greatest advantage of such a war, mostly fought in Iran-Iraq and Iran-Afghanistan would be that it could last several generations and keep the Islamolunatics busy so they would ignore the rest of the world. (Lebanon would probably be a battle ground too with 45% Shia population.)
A basic tenet of traditional international realpolitique is: 'lets you and him fight.'
Both sides would probably use nukes. According to Bernard Lewis in the 8-8-2006 Wall Street Journal, neither side would hesitate to nuke the other side.
The US would have to protect the Kurds and the Turks, but that would be a good place to have Middle East bases.
Maybe its not a bad idea. Its appeal may come from my personal discomfort at sitting around doing little and being a victim of a global anti-commercial, anti-Semitic movement.