The idea of winning over Iraq by working with the tribes is not new. This was a workable concept put on the table by Gen Zinni and Amb Lawrence Pope in the late 1990s. Their view, presented to Congress, was that if/if the US entered Iraq it should develop a strategy of working first and foremost with the tribes.

That was obviously a strategy rejected by the new Administration and one which caused the demise of both extremely astute and informed gentlemen.

Gen Petraeus was apparently listening – from his position at Joint Staff. Had the Administration listened there is a good chance that Al Qaeda would not have gotten a foothold to begin with and that internal insurgencies would not have materialized.

The understood governmental structure in Iraq and much of the middle east is dependent upon the tribal structure. This system has been in operation throughout the history of the Middle East. For any entity to ignore this is folly. We find our selves in a situation where we are dependent upon the oil pumped from the ground. We seem to find it preferable to "support" The governments in that region. There are choices such as the former Soviet Union or China. On the surface we seem to ignore the treatment of the people of the middle east while nitpicking all the abuses that are done to the citizens of China and Russia.
It is incompatible with the mindset of the people of the middle east to fully embrace what we conceder "free & fare elections" with candidates that have the countries best interests at heart.
The loyalty is with tribal organizations and that is fundamentally why Al Qaeda has been able to move with stealth in the Middle East, they understand the complexities of the tribal influences which are so vital to the way things work in much of the Middle East. If we have any hope of ending the conflict that we have in my view blundered in to we must work with the tribal structure to find mutually beneficial outcomes for all concerned.
It is also my view that we should make much more of an effort to negotiate a deal with China and Russia to get our oil and Gas from them. This will likely require us to give them the latest technology to make the process as clean as posable and to limit the waste of the older technology. If we can bring our selves to do these two things then we will stand to create a comparative situation where the countries of the middle east would have to compete with China and Russia in quality and price.
This is I fully understand a risky proposition however if we only depend on the Middle East we limit the power of the market and we end up being required to support governmental structures that do not follow established country boundaries we also leave our selves in a situation where OPEC. decides how much we pay for oil and gas. As a country that was made grate by market forces the fact that we choose to under utilize them is bend me. I see no end to the current conflict, infect I see the conflict spreading over the coming decades with no end unless and until We the ones who took the cork out of the bottle use the power of the tribal system in fighting the war and the power of the world market in finding the oil and gas that we will need until we find the blend of technologies that will be needed to wean us off fossil flues.

Once again the U.S. is resorting to "politics of convenience" here. In many regions, we are arming tribal groups to fight Al Qaeda. I imagine that the hope of the administration is that temporary stability will foster long-term stability, and let us all join in this hope.

It remains, however, a fact that these groups hold little loyalty to the U.S. and ultimately have their own, personal agendas that fundamentally are at odds with our objectives.

Let us remember that in the 1980s we resorted to the politics of convenience in Afghanistan. Among the "Freedom Fighters" we supported were the Taliban. Look where that got us.

oh hey, anything the administration can do to further the military-industrial pact in the U.S. is fine with me....let the old people wither away, let the children be uneducated, let the majority of the people get by on no health care or substandard health care, let people lose their homes, let the middle class keep shrinking as it struggles and gives up more and more to support the reigning bushites and their extortionate, corrupt, gang of thieves.

This policy is actually one of the most salient and proven concepts from a historical and civil-military relations point of view. Until an individual feels secure, he/she will take no interest beyond personal survival. The local citizen is the primary person who "knows the territory" and who can clearly recognize who "belongs" and who does not.

Three things are necessary to prevent (or eliminate) any insurgency:

1. An opportunity to be a "stakeholder" in the political process -- typically defined as an acceptable level of autonomy (self-government) underneath a stable and equitable national or regional governmental structure.
2. Economic viability -- unless basic human needs are met and a definitive future standard of living acceptable by local standards and norms exists, there can be no stability, only increasing expectations and disaffection.
3. There must be a strong (and credible) deterrent against crime and violence. Otherwise, the previous two requirements cannot be met.

In Iraq, CLC groups are a significant part of the process designed to provide these three fundamental requirements. Peace and stability for citizens are the main functions and responsibilities of any government (whether national, local, or tribal). However, no government can achieve these goals and conditions without the express consent and dedicated support of its citizens.

This a right choice. Give the local people a control over their own fate. If tribal structures work best in Iraq, so be it. This is how most European nations formed naturally in the past, tribal confederations. This is probably a natural way to proceed in Iraq too, build the country from the bottom up.

Yes, some of these people may turn away from the US eventually, but then the US is not supposed to run Iraq long-term. The local people are supposed to take over Iraq from the occupation forces. The initial support offered by the US to the Sunnis should be used to build up good will, contacts, and support among the Sunnis that can be later relied on to stop the same people shooting US troops, or to influence them not to fight among themselves.

The end aim is not a US managed Iraq, or a puppet state, but a US withdrawal from a reasonably stable Iraq. No need to worry about the possibility that the Sunnis become independent, because they already are. They just see what Al-Qadea is doing to their lands, and some of them have had enough, and the US is a better ally for now.

I have to agree with jmmx. US policy is always what suits them best currently - policy of convenience. It is rather rare that a leader has the foresight to support the right cause at the right time. More so the past 7years!

A couple of decades ago it was the Shah of Iran, then the Taliban. A few years from now we will see the unraveling of the Sunni support.

the policy of divide and conquer will backfire on the occupiers.the Arabs who the US like to call Sunni tribes will point their Guns at the Americans in the future.it is just a matter of time, stupid colonial powers never learn from History.I hope they give more Guns to these Iraqis the more the better.