Given this, the U.S. goal should not automatically be the defeat of the insurgents by the regime (which may be impossible, particularly when the partner regime is only half-heartedly committed to it), but the rapid resolution of the conflict. In other words, a quick and sustainable outcome which integrates most of the insurgents into the national power structure is less damaging to U.S. national interests than a protracted conflict which leads to the complete destruction of the insurgents.[*] Protracted conflict, not insurgent victory, is the threat. [my emphasis added]

Under the Deadeye/Unit regime, protracted conflict is the objective.  This goes beyond the penny-ante war profiteering of Halliburton and the rest.  It's about taking the oil, silly.  We are seeing that the construction of permanent bases in Iraq, conveniently located close to the sources of and pipelines for oil, continues apace.  

To put the activities of the Deadeye/Unit regime into a metaphor easily understood by all, answer this:

Assume you want a TV, and the store has one in the display window, but you are not willing to pay the asking price.  You are inclined to take it without paying.  If you were going to try to steal the TV from the store, would you try to do this theft (a) on a peaceful afternoon with an average number of people walking the sidewalks in the neighborhood, or (b) in the middle of a riot?  (Those are your only choices)

The answer is (b) - you want to get away with it and, in the land of the law-abiding, peaceful citizenry, you would almost certainly be apprehended before you could get away.  In the middle of a riot, it'd just be another breaking window.  Thieves and rogues know this instinctively - disorder, upheaval and riot facilitate theft and general lawlessness, so they encourage and exploit them.

And, then, you'd make Objective No. 1 for the new puppet government:  "Pass an oil law ratifying our theft." Which is our Objective No. 1 in Iraq.  While they wrangle over that bone of the Oil Law (not that it's intended to do anything but cause them to wrangle), the insurgency grows and deepens, and the grudges are inflamed and the lust for revenge tomorrow fueled by atrocities today.

Consider. The assumpation is that the insurgency cannot be "managed." Now why a writer would use the word "managed" when writing about an insurgency, I really don't know. You don't managed an insurgency. You defeat it. Or, it defeats you.

But let's ignore that and just look at the word:
"serious." The premise is a serious insurgency that can't be managed. That would be an insurgency that is "winning."

Now. Lay aside that fact, and ask. Okay. What do we do to mutate them from insurgents/terrorists into criminals?? Do we have a supply of pixie dust left over from Disney that we can sprinkle on them?? Do we hold their hands and repeat: "I want to go home.... I want to go home..."

I know this sounds cranky, but what is it that we need to do?? The author doesn't tell us, and that is mostly because he doesn't know. So what he has done is make a feel good statement with no details....Kinda like, "If we just leave Iraq everything will be ok...Ahummmmmm Ahummmm."

Remember that the insurgency is winning?? (That's real world talk for "serious...can't be managed.")
Can someone tell me why an insurgent who is willing to die for his cause is ready to be converted over to a criminal??

"Tell you what, Mohammed. You can have SW Baghad and your brother NW...No??? Don't you know all the money and drugs you can have????

Oh... You want to run the country and then the world.....

What??? You really meant all that jihad stuff?? Hey, don't get touchy... Watch our for that sword....I'm here to negotiate...."

He is stupid crazy, ignorant, dishonest and dishonorable.
A terrible person and a menace.

Not to mention tapping phones getting quick warrants etc...

Come on BTD you know better.