Is it too Late to Pick a Winner?
Now that more or less everybody has admitted that Iraq is in a state of civil war, with the different factions inside and outside the government in open war with each other, does anybody have any idea what US troops are doing there now? They aren't preventing violence and they aren't holding the country together. Sunni's and Shiites are apparently both confident of winning the showdown once the US gets out of the way. Is it too late for the US to pick a winner in the upcoming war and try to mitigate the inevitable slaughter?
Probably so. More or less all Iraqi's are united in their hatred of the US, so if we pick a winner we will be blamed for all the crimes it commits in suppressing the opposition. If anyone consolidates power, they will turn all their efforts to expelling us. Moreover, anyone we side with will quickly lose most of their internal support.
Is it too late for a political deal? Probably. The Sunnis might still settle for a fair share of any oil revenues but it's hard to imagine the Shia or Kurds signing up. In any case, such a deal can hardly happen without Syria, Iran, and Turkey signing up, and they will want a big price. Iran, in particular, will likely want a US guarantee against attack by us or Israel. Syria will want the Golan and a free hand in Lebanon. Neither of these is likely to be acceptable to Israel, but Israel's maneuvering room is shrinking rapidly.
Olmert, probably under heavy pressure from the wiser heads in Israel, is now trying to restart the "peace process." I would guess that chances for success are slim.
The trouble with a quagmire is that it's easy to into it. It's getting out that's hard. Very bad things are likely to happen if we get out of Iraq either suddenly or gradually. Very bad things are likely to continue to happen if we stay. Whichever we choose, we need for our troops to have a legitimate mission. Supporting "the elected government" isn't a mission, because the government is a set of warring factions. We can't "stand up the police" to control the militias if the police are the militias.
The contradictions in our current posture were most evident in the abortive attempt we made to retrieve the kidnapped American soldier apparently held in Sadr city. Because the Iraqi government depends on al Sadr's support, they made us desist in our efforts. The government in Iraq - the freely elected Iraqi government - is the problem, not the solution.
If McCain or some other bozo wants to send 20,000 more US troops to Bagdad, he better be prepared to explain in detail what difference it's going to make and precisely how. Will the militias be suppressed? By whom? How? What will be the lines of authority between the US and the Iraqi government? What are they now?
So what's the least awful choice? My vote is for getting the heck out and sending the Iraqis a note to say:
Probably so. More or less all Iraqi's are united in their hatred of the US, so if we pick a winner we will be blamed for all the crimes it commits in suppressing the opposition. If anyone consolidates power, they will turn all their efforts to expelling us. Moreover, anyone we side with will quickly lose most of their internal support.
Is it too late for a political deal? Probably. The Sunnis might still settle for a fair share of any oil revenues but it's hard to imagine the Shia or Kurds signing up. In any case, such a deal can hardly happen without Syria, Iran, and Turkey signing up, and they will want a big price. Iran, in particular, will likely want a US guarantee against attack by us or Israel. Syria will want the Golan and a free hand in Lebanon. Neither of these is likely to be acceptable to Israel, but Israel's maneuvering room is shrinking rapidly.
Olmert, probably under heavy pressure from the wiser heads in Israel, is now trying to restart the "peace process." I would guess that chances for success are slim.
The trouble with a quagmire is that it's easy to into it. It's getting out that's hard. Very bad things are likely to happen if we get out of Iraq either suddenly or gradually. Very bad things are likely to continue to happen if we stay. Whichever we choose, we need for our troops to have a legitimate mission. Supporting "the elected government" isn't a mission, because the government is a set of warring factions. We can't "stand up the police" to control the militias if the police are the militias.
The contradictions in our current posture were most evident in the abortive attempt we made to retrieve the kidnapped American soldier apparently held in Sadr city. Because the Iraqi government depends on al Sadr's support, they made us desist in our efforts. The government in Iraq - the freely elected Iraqi government - is the problem, not the solution.
If McCain or some other bozo wants to send 20,000 more US troops to Bagdad, he better be prepared to explain in detail what difference it's going to make and precisely how. Will the militias be suppressed? By whom? How? What will be the lines of authority between the US and the Iraqi government? What are they now?
So what's the least awful choice? My vote is for getting the heck out and sending the Iraqis a note to say:
We are sorry that our bull wrecked your china shop. If you get yourself back together we will provide modest help to repair the damage. We are sorry that we falsely accused you of helping the anti-US terrorists and building a nuke.
P.S. If you are thinking about actually sponsoring terrorists in revenge, we still have the bull.
Comments
Post a Comment