"That assumes that this was the goal, rather than an oil rich client state easily succumbing to our wishes providing a new set of bases replacing the ones removed from Saudi Arabia"

Let's see, before the invasion of Iraq, oil was around $30 a barrel and we were already in the process of moving our forces out of the Saudi Kingdom and into Kuwait and the surrounding Emirates. It's likely the cost of war will approach a trillion dollars, cost the lives of thousands of soldiers and many more thousands of Iraqi civilians. All for a few bases? That's conceding the idea that whatever emerges from the ashes of our invasion will easily succumb to our wishes. Not bloody likely.

Emartin,

You may be correct about Iran seeing Sadr as a temporary fix. My point was that Iran funded, created and supported the Mahdi Army. It didn't suddenly spring up from whole cloth. Whether is the Shi'ites of the Sadr variety or it's the Shi'ites of the ISCI variety, Iran will be pulling the strings.

One more quibble…

"Iraq fought Iran to a standstill once, and could do so again. All we would have to do is let Iran know that Iraq would have our jets as an airforce. Watch them try to invade then. Not to mention that Iran itself is in little position for conquest considering its own considerable internal problems."

Iraq under Saddam was a lot different place than the Iraq of today. It's far from clear they could mount the kind of force sufficient to repel any aggressor, let alone one who has close times to two thirds of the population. But Iran isn't interested in making the same invasion/occupation mistakes we made. They will back their Shi'ite friends both financially and militarily. Over time, these groups will become dependent on Iranian support which Tehran will use to wield influence. Simple as that. Iran will have people in the military, the judicial branch, the central government and the oil industry. I'm sure it's happening already.

"he's far less beholden to Iran than the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq or Maliki's Da'wa Party…"

The comparision is apples and oranges. The Da'wa Party is political, Sadr's Medhi Militia is not. Sadr's militia did not spring up overnight and take control of several cities in 2004 without the assistance of Iran.

"Sadr remains perhaps the most popular figure in Shiite Iraq."

No, that would be Sistani. He still controls the Shi'ite clerical community. He's also very apolitical and has shown no desire to see

a Shi'ite cleric installed as Prime Minister.

"the Iraqis will never trust any leader that foreigners pick for them"

That may be true but I doubt anyone is going to ask them when it's all said and done. Iran has invested a great deal in Iraq and once we leave, whenever that is, they will seek a return on that investment. Iraqi's, minus Americans with guns, will not be in a position to do much about it.

The endgame is pretty clear in Iraq. Iran will treat Iraq much the way Syria treats Lebanon. The only question is how long before we get there and how many more US soldiers are going to die in the process.

"That assumes that this was the goal, rather than an oil rich client state easily succumbing to our wishes providing a new set of bases replacing the ones removed from Saudi Arabia"

Let’s see, before the invasion of Iraq, oil was around $30 a barrel and we were already in the process of moving our forces out of the Saudi Kingdom and into Kuwait and the surrounding Emirates. It’s likely the cost of war will approach a trillion dollars, cost the lives of thousands of soldiers and many more thousands of Iraqi civilians. All for a few bases? That’s conceding the idea that whatever emerges from the ashes of our invasion will easily succumb to our wishes. Not bloody likely.

Emartin,

You may be correct about Iran seeing Sadr as a temporary fix. My point was that Iran funded, created and supported the Mahdi Army. It didn’t suddenly spring up from whole cloth. Whether is the Shi’ites of the Sadr variety or it’s the Shi’ites of the ISCI variety, Iran will be pulling the strings.