The last refuge of pro-Iraq-war neolefties is the theory promoted by Charles Ferguson and George Packer in ‘No End in Sight’ that everything would have gone great in Iraq if we’d just done the invasion right, and, notably, if we’d not disbanded the Iraqi army.
Last night on ‘Hardball,’ Congressman and prez-candidate Duncan Hunter took this claim on, noting that there had been "11,000 Sunni generals" in the Iraqi army. I note that Gen. Petraeus made this comment the other day in testimony. I.e., How do you ask such a force to legitimately lead a Shia-majority nation? How do the neolibs answer this?
Avoid the black and white thinking Phil. Be creative. You get rid of the hardliners and keep the honorable soldiers that are Iraqi patriots. You don't have disband all 11,000. There were probably quite a few who could have been convinced to help with the rebuilding in return for keeping their job and a little bonus money. Military Intelligence is skilled at getting them to leak on the others who are covert resistors.
I'm not a Neo-Lib, but I have an answer to your question. At that time, although Iraqis did identify themselves by religious affiliation, they saw themselves to be as much Iraqis as Shi'a or Sunni. If the Iraqi army had been called back, it would have had a lot more legitimacy AND incentive (since this was their home, their heritage) to keep order, and in my opinion they would have had a good chance of doing the job. There is certainly an argument that if the security situation could have been prevented from deteriorating to the degree that it did, there would have been much less incentive for Iraqi's to seek refuge and protection within their religious ties.
Now, I'm not saying that even if the army had not been disbanded the security situation would still not have deteriorated like it did, just that this would have given "us" the best shot of restoring or sustaining law and order.
I would also add that even if the army had been called back, resulting in a smooth transition of sovereignty back to the Iraqis and a non-violent withdrawal of U.S. troops within a year or so after the invasion, it still would NOT have been the right thing to do. Not matter what the outcome, non-provoked offensive aggression is NEVER moral.
Lastly, I'd say that the nature of the ideologues who came up with this invasion were such that there was little no to way they would have made this kinds of rational decision anyway. The whole enterprise itself was (and is) an exercise in suicidal futility.
BTW, I found your blog via a recommendation by Justin Raimondo at Taki's blog. Thought-provoking stuff you write, Mr. Weiss.