A Modest Proposal

William Lind has an article in The American Conservative with a provocative proposal about Iraq that, I think, manages to highlight the extent to which a lot of the Iraq discussion has become misguided. Lind's basic idea is that we should make some kind of accommodation with Iran, get our troops out of Iraq, and hope that Muqtada al-Sadr (or perhaps and equivalent populist, anti-American Shiite) takes the country over.

As it happens, I agree with Lind that this would be an okay outcome given the realistically possible options. One must see, though, that to many American observers "limiting Iranian influence in Iraq" is a top-tier priority. The way Lind sees it, our top priority is just that someone or other effectively control Iraq territory so that non-state actors (i.e., al-Qaeda) don't run free. The point, though, is that you can't talk about which plans will "work" for Iraq unless you talk about what it is we're trying to accomplish in broader regional terms. The "check Iranian influence" theory is very, very popular in Washington and, I think, is most of what's actually motivating the "residual forces" crowd. But the disagreement there is about broader strategic priorities and not about Iraq as such.

Defense Department photo by Master Sargent Jonathan Doti, U.S. Air Force

Comments

Gee, kinda sounds like what you want is a Sunni dictator who doesn't get along with Iran or Al Queda.

If only we had one of them handy...

Posted by Eric K | July 26, 2007 5:49 PM

I just checked Iranian influence in Iraq, and it turns out Iraq is like over 60% Shiite. I can see why it's so popular.

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 5:49 PM

It's a good point, Matt. And it's one that circles back to Obama's main point about his foreign policy wisdom: You don't need to accept Washington's "common sense" wisdom to be properly experienced for the presidency. It's Washington "common sense" that Iran is this crazed enemy hellbent on our or Israel's destruction. It's just not the case.

Iran could be one of our best allies in the region: They have one of the most pro-Western populations; they have relative economic and political stability; and they don't like Al Qaeda. Saying, "Oh, we don't want Iranian interests to run amok" is just silly when in the context of a fight against Al Qaeda.

Posted by Media Glutton | July 26, 2007 5:50 PM

The handover to Sadr will have the advantageous effect for President Jenna Bush in 2024 who will be able to restore her sagging popularity by sending our troops to Iraq for getting rid of the tyrant Shia dictator.

Posted by gregor | July 26, 2007 5:51 PM

Iran could be one of our best allies in the region: They have one of the most pro-Western populations; they have relative economic and political stability; and they don't like Al Qaeda. Saying, "Oh, we don't want Iranian interests to run amok" is just silly when in the context of a fight against Al Qaeda.

*forwarded to Mark Steyn for consideration*

Posted by Bill | July 26, 2007 5:54 PM

Wow, just wow. Turn the country over to al-sadr. Great plan, Matt. Why don't we turn Lebanon over to Nasrallah while were at it?

Posted by Dave | July 26, 2007 6:07 PM

our top priority is just that someone or other effectively control Iraq territory so that non-state actors (i.e., al-Qaeda) don't run free.

What about Hezbollah? If Sadr and Iran continue to donate resources to this non-state actor would that not be a threat to us and Israel. the general pouplation in Iran might be pro-American but not the real power holders. I do not see the situtaion changing any time soon.

Posted by nara | July 26, 2007 6:23 PM

To follow up on Bill's comment, Iran probably doesn't want to have a strongly Shiite Iraqi government. Some of the Iraqi Shiite religious leaders technically "outrank" the Iranian Shiite clerics, so the nationalist Iranian clerics will not be willing to "submit" to the authority of the Iraqi clerics (who currently are not trying to "pull rank" but will do so in the future).

The US presence in Iraq is uniting the Shiites by providing a common enemy. Once we get out, the nationalist differences will regain importance and they will be fighting each other again.

Posted by H-Bob | July 26, 2007 6:30 PM

Should be "Master Sergeant".

Anyhow, regarding Sadr: The Iraqis can't be stupid enough to let him run Iraq -- not after his party's great job running the Health Ministry into the ground.

Posted by Fred | July 26, 2007 6:32 PM

I haven't read the Lind article, so I can't be authoritative. But the American Conservative is the Buchananite mouthpiece. It's not to be trusted. Even Republicans, as measured by polls, reject an immediate all-or-nothing drawdown, and want time for the surge to work.

The Petraeus report's not out for a couple of months yet. Let the general and his troops do the job. Success on the ground is happening, public opinion is more firm in its backing on Iraq in general, and all of this gives us way more negotiating power vis-a-vis Iran should negotations take place.

http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/07/surge-is-gaining-traction-in-public.html

Posted by Donald Douglas | July 26, 2007 6:43 PM

TAC is currently owned by Ron Unz.

Lind's attitude is, "We're completely fucked." There's no hack enthusiasm in that article; it's a guy who's giving an end-of-the-line drunk directions to an AA meeting. There is no expectation that what's being said matters.

Posted by turkey | July 26, 2007 6:49 PM

Shorter Donald: ONE MORE F.U.!

Posted by Rob | July 26, 2007 6:50 PM

Checking Iranian influence in Iraq is a fools' errand, because it almost certainly cannot be done, given the preponderance of Shiites. It is also a Saudi errand, because it matters very little to the U.S. and a lot to the Saudis.

The relentless propaganda about Iran and the role of Iran in de-stabilizing should be challenged.

And, the absence of honesty about the extent to which Saudi Arabia is feeding jihadis and money into Sunni Iraq should also be exposed.

The suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis. The financing for the Sunni insurgency, which is doing 90% of the killing of American soldier is Saudi.

And, American policy is shaped to serve Saudi interests over our own. What is wrong with this picture?

Posted by Bruce Wilder | July 26, 2007 6:58 PM

Another Modest Proposal

Iran is unique in that it is not Arab, nobody trust them, and if we nuke them it would be a splash of cold water in the face of N. Korea and Pakistan.

Not only should we take out their weapons facilities but crippling their entire infrastructure so that at least 30-40 million of their people are without electricity, petrol or food for a long time would show people that there is a line you don't cross with the US.

Iran is 1) making war on the US in Iraq
2) pursuing nuclear weapons
3) run by nuts

We should apply this 3 part litmus test, call it Jozef's rule. Pakistan, NKorea and others may meet 2 of these 3, but when ever someone meets all 3, that should simply be the end. Lights out.

We keep being told that the Iranian people "Like us". We'll see

Posted by Jozef | July 26, 2007 7:56 PM

If there are elections anytime soon in the South, we will see how "stupid" the Iraqis are. I would bet that Sadr's coalition will sweep. Even if the U.S. wanted a dictator in Iraq, that dictator would be restrained by the Iraqi popular will.

Withdrawal from Iraq has to be coupled with a form of reality therapy for D.C. elites - a good place to start is the definition of democracy. It doesn't mean American friendly, shockingly enough. I do think the unconscious reflex of the warmongers is that we should keep American soldiers in Iraq to force the Iraqis to heel. This explains the odd contradiction in the deadender support for the war - on the one hand, support for democracy in Iraq, on the other hand, increasingly unhinged anti-Moslem attitudes. It makes no logical sense to want to unleash freedom in Iraq when you are unequivocally opposed to the way Iraqis will use it - unless, of course, you believe that Iraqis are secretly just like Christian Americans, and that they just need to be forced to embrace what they really want anyway - the GOP way to redemption.

Posted by roger | July 26, 2007 8:08 PM

ps - which is why the prowar group falls so easily into using the language of the stalker: vehement, obscene, full of references to dirtbags and scumbags. Because that is what the pro-war position is: stalking as a foreign policy.

Posted by roger | July 26, 2007 8:11 PM

Jozef, I don't know if you noticed, but our country is run by nuts, has nuclear weapons, and has made war in Iraq for four years. So we pass your litmus test, too! Self-invasion will be hard, but I'm sure you're brave enough to volunteer to fight, just like I'm sure you're brave enough to volunteer in our war in Iraq.

Posted by Media Glutton | July 26, 2007 8:13 PM

No Glutton, the test is that they've made war on the United States' forces in Iraq (I happen to be an american, so my test is from that perspective) not sure where you line up, citizen of the world or somesuch, I'm sure

Agree our country is run by nuts, have you ever listened to Dennis Kucinich, and that man has a vote in Congress!

Don't understand roger's point about stalking as foreign policy. Sounds slightly French, or is there a vehement, obscene person stalking him?

Vehement - is that a bad word? Kind of like the Aunt Pollys who cluck about things being "explicit".

Posted by Jozef | July 26, 2007 8:30 PM

Lind makes a lot of sense, all things being equal in a sensible world. Unfortunately that is not the case. The drumbeat for war with Iran, a country which continues to resist American hegemony, is increasing and nobody wants to see Iranian troops in abandoned US bases. Iraq under Sunni-Saudi control might be desirable from the US standpoint, but is impossible. I guess that in the final analysis the Iraqis will decide their own fate. What a concept!

Posted by Don Bacon | July 26, 2007 9:02 PM

Iraq is a one-armed bandit and Bush is on the stool plugging in the quarters. It's robbed him for several years, never giving up a jackpot or even a modest payoff. He's not giving in until he gets some of his goddamned investment back. So, U.S. soldiers and Iraqis will continue dying while he yanks and yanks and yanks on that arm. Meanwhile the rest of the family is fearful of forcing an intervention. Dry drunks on a gambling binge can get so nasty when they're dragged from the casino.

Posted by steve duncan | July 26, 2007 9:19 PM

Iraq is a one-armed bandit and Bush is on the stool plugging in the quarters. It's robbed him for several years, never giving up a jackpot or even a modest payoff. He's not giving in until he gets some of his goddamned investment back. So, U.S. soldiers and Iraqis will continue dying while he yanks and yanks and yanks on that arm. Meanwhile the rest of the family is fearful of forcing an intervention. Dry drunks on a gambling binge can get so nasty when they're dragged from the casino.

Posted by steve duncan | July 26, 2007 9:19 PM

It's just funny watching the D.C. elites squirming as they desparately try to salvage something, anything, from the total disaster they've created. They are all deeply implicated in this mess, democrats and pundits included, as most were gung ho to invade Iraq back in '03.

Inbreeding, arrogance, ambition, and isolation have rendered our elites less and less capable of making rational judgements about anything.

Posted by kafka | July 26, 2007 9:23 PM

The thing about Lind's suggestion is that it leaves us almost exactly back at square one, viz., the instant the U.S. leaves, Sadr and Hakim are going to start fighting like cats in heat, neither have enough manpower to hold on to the central part of the country, and the Ba'ath party still thinks it has a shot at grabbing the whole banana once the U.S. is gone.

OTOH, a settlement between Sadr, Hakim, and a collection of Sunni local leaders (if not with the Ba'athists themselves) probably isn't outside the realm of possibility. The problem is that the only honest broker in the country happens to be an octogenarian who hates politics.

Posted by Andrew R. | July 26, 2007 11:35 PM

I am really somewhat shocked by the reception of this article. The fact that this patently idiotic and comically amoral proposal is being kicked around in a forum like Matt’s shows the utter madness and depravity into which our entire political culture has sunk, on all sides it seems.

What Lind and Matt are right about is that the US- Israeli obsession with taking on and rolling back Iran is a huge hindrance to progress in the region, a hindrance that is prolonging the war and killing more Americans, and that the US needs to find a way to work with Iran - and others in the region and around the world - in a constructive way to work out a multilateral, coordinated, regional strategy for stabilizing Iraq. An opening to Iran – yes, absolutely.

Everything beyond that point in Lind’s article is totally loopy: wacked-out Strangelovian, blood-soaked, radical right kookiness. Just a few off-hand observations:

1. It is just as foolish to imagine that Iran can "re-create an Iraqi state" as it is to think that the United States can re-create an Iraqi state. I really can't even form a plausible, non-insane mental picture of the kind of outcome Lind is imagining here.

2. Neither the Shia in Iraq alone, not the Iraqi Shia with Iranian help, can subdue the rather large Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq and establish a pan-Iraqi state under Sadrist control. Sadr's forces, even with Iranian support, probably couldn't even subjugate the Shia portion of Iraq. (I should add that the "even with Iranian support part" is an absurd subjunctive counterfactual hypothesis, given that Iran is actually closer to the non-Sadrist Shia elements in Iraq than it is to Sadr.) To imagine they can is to engage in wishful thinking that is positively Perle-like in its fantastical reach. It even flies in the face of Lind's vaunted "4th generation war" theories, with their emphasis on the de-centralization of political violence, the power of non-state actors and difficulty of conquest of the conventional kind. Honestly, what the hell is he thinking?

3. The Israelis have been trying to subdue a geographically much more contained and demographically smaller Arab population in Palestine for about 60 years and it hasn't happened yet. The Sunni regions of Iraq, on the other hand, are no miniscule West Bank, but lie along a massive uncontrollable western and southern border, touching neighboring countries filled with millions of potential allies, and also penetrate into the populous heart and nerve center of Iraq. What the hell do Lind/Yglesias think is going to happen after waves of hysterical Sunni refuges start flooding into Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia at even faster clips than they are flowing now, and horrified and outraged young Sunni men begin racing back in, packing weapons flown and trucked in by the aroused defenders of Sunni Islam throughout the region? Do the words “all hell breaking loose” mean anything to you?

4. It should be even more clear that there is absolutely no way in hell that Kurdish Iraq, and their rather well-trained and well-equipped peshmerga would stand still for an Iraq taken over by some ragged Shia proletariat from “Sadr City”. The very modest levels of Kurdish cooperation with the largely impotent Shia-dominated government that now exist are a mere alliance of temporary convenience against a common enemy that continues only so long as the Kurds can continue to exploit that fabrication in order to lay the groundwork for autonomy and eventual independence. The concussion that would spread through Kurdish Iraq and broader Kurdistan as a result of some attempted Sadrist takeover of all of Iraq would promptly mobilize the Kurdish nationalist movement into full-scale military action, and provoke a crisis, and likely uprising, throughout the states that would-be Kurdistan overlaps. Depending on the character of the mixed Shia-dominated government that continues to muddle along pathetically in Baghdad, Kurdish Iraq might continue to accept some sort of federalism or regionalism under a nominal government of “Iraq”. But all bets would be off following a serious move by a militant Sadrist movement to “take over” Iraq – as futile and stupid as such a move would be anyway.

5. Nor is it remotely plausible to think that a Sadrist “takeover” would lead to some sort of stabilization of Iraq. Do you think these guys could actually run a state? This is the same mob who couldn’t even organize the hanging of one man without turning it into a grotesque and inept farce. Far from stability, we're much more likely to see a sort of post-French Revolution situation where the intoxicating momentum of a revolutionary sectarian takeover of parts of a large country spills over into a fanatical sectarian/nationalist reign of terror, and an expansion of the fighting beyond Iraq’s borders. The Sadrists are an angry and aggrieved underclass motivated by a bitter, centuries-old awareness of oppression. Once they were through carrying out their vendetta against Iraq’s Sunnis, even if they could succeed in that, they would most likely keep going to kick even more Sunni ass wherever they could find it. Of course the whole spasm of revenge and fanatical sectarian utopianism would be doomed from the beginning, but history is full of doomed, pissed-off people going wild until they are turned back at terrible human cost.

Lind says:

Fortunately, another objective, the one that actually matters most, may, with luck and skill, still be achieved. That objective—restoring a state in what is now the stateless region of Mesopotamia—must become our new definition of victory. .

And he continues:

The one chance of victory we have left is to get out of the way of al-Sadr and anyone else in Iraq who might be able to re-create an Iraqi state, praying fervently that they succeed. Having failed in our own efforts, it is time to give the Iraqis and Dame Fortune our place at the gaming table.

I literally laughed when I read these passages. This is truly silly. Does Lind actually think that once the US simply “gets out of the way”, there is some group inside Iraq that is poised to take over and subjugate the entire country? Where? What is he talking about? Does he read anything other than his own obsessive Fourth Generation Warfare theorizing? If any of the major groups in Iraq even tries such a thing, the odds are much more heavily tilted toward the full-blown, multi-sided war blowing up that whole region. Can he honestly think the massive spasm of violence that would be stimulated by a Sadrist move to take over the country would simply “roll up al-Qaeda” without spawning a dozen other al-Qaeda’s of every conceivable sect and degree of ungovernable fanaticism? How is this magical “stabilization” supposed to occur? Are the Sadrists going to drop some kind of sleeping gas on the entire country and tie everyone up while they’re asleep? Also, conventional borders as we know them mean a lot less to people in the Middle East than they do to people in other parts of the world. What invisible, towering iron wall around Iraq does Lind think will contain the fighting inside the country?

Lind also states:

Nor is al-Sadr merely a Shi’ite leader; he has kept open channels of communication to at least some of the Sunni insurgent groups—and perhaps channels not of communication only. Some of the Sunni insurgents clearly have benefited from Iranian support, which may have come through al-Sadr. Of late, al-Sadr has taken care to restrain his followers from revenge attacks against Sunnis, stressing Shi’ite-Sunni unity against the foreign occupier. He has had his eye on the brass ring, the supreme leadership position in a restored Iraqi state, from the beginning. Now he may see it as within reach.

Again, this is fantastically wishful thinking. Whatever ties exist between Sadr and mainstream Sunni groups in Iraq are, again, of a temporary and transiently convenient nature. What Sunnis dream of is a return to a level of power and influence somewhat approaching their previous exalted position in the country. They continue to fight because they believe that once they succeed in getting the US out of direct involvement with the day-to-day fighting in Iraq, and provoke a collapse of the Baghdad government, while the US stupidly pairs with its Sunni allies in the region to keep Iranian influence out of the country, the way will be cleared for them to retake Baghdad and central Iraq. What the old guard Sunnis may be compelled to accept in the long run is some sort of regional autonomy. But they are never going to fall totally under the thumb of the Shia. It is true that there are Sunni populations who aren’t as fanatically and violently contemptful of Shia as the more hardline Salafists takfiris. But the notion that the established Sunni populations, with their well-established sense of dignity and cultural superiority, would consent to be ruled by the likes of Moqtada al-Sadr and his filthy Shia rabble from the slums of Baghdad is laughable. You might as well imagine that Oregon, Arizona, Nevada would consent to a revolutionary government born in South L.A.

What the US needs to “get out of the way of” is not some preposterous Sadrist takeover, but a regional political settlement and strategy for stabilizing Iraq. Promotion of peace and stability does not require a re-creation of Iraq, whether we only “see” that re-creation happen or try to push it pro-actively. But stabilization may be do-able once we get Iraq out of the regional crossfire of the insanely counterproductive US-Iran rivalry. We need a regional peace conference that achieves some measure of political resolution and agreement and stability around Iraq's periphery, and then works inward with a common purpose.

I'm sort of embarrassed even to be reading this stuff here. If what we were seeing in Iraq were happening in any other country, and if the “great power” involved were anybody else but the United States, and if there weren’t so many partisan egos involved in our domestic civil war over The War, I assume virtually everyone on the left, from the center-left to the far left, would be talking about some sort of internationalization of what is clearly an acute global problem. They would want a peace conference, a coordinated international plan of action, possible introduction of peacekeepers and border patrols, financial bailouts, and practical steps to actually produce peace. Instead, our national debate is so twisted and perverted by the domestic hostilities over the war that we are willing to tolerate radical right wingnuts like Lind and Buchanan, whose sole virtue is that they are as fervently opposed to the war as the antiwar left (but for very different reasons!), and whose outlook toward the fighting among Arabs and Muslims is just as monstrous as the genocidal "let Israel win" faction of the neocon right they oppose.

Just listen to this crap from Lind. Listen with your head and your heart:

Moreover, by accentuating the Sunni-Shi’ite rivalry within Islam, we may help fold Islamic expansionism back on itself, an essential quality of any indirect approach. As James Kurth wrote in a September 2005 article in this magazine entitled “Splitting Islam”:

If the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict became not only intense and widespread but also prolonged, perhaps as much so as the Sino-Soviet conflict during the last three decades of the Cold War, the global Islamist movement might have almost no meaning or attraction at all. In the Muslim world there might be Sunni Islamists and Shi’ite Islamists, but each might consider their greatest enemy to be not the United States, but each other.

This is really monstrous thinking, possibly the most frank and brutal kind of divide and conquer right-wing racism that I have run across recently. Here we see that the nationalist, xenophobic “antiwar right” only hates American wars. They love everybody else’s wars and don’t care how many of the worthless foreigners kill themselves. I am stunned that antiwar left is so far gone in its bitterness and resentment over the Bush war in that it would consider for a moment giving a hearing to these sorts of foaming ravings from the Buchanan antiwar right with its fanatical, head-up-its-ass chauvinism. I hope we’re not seeing the same phenomenon that happened during the Vietnam war, where a whole bunch of one-time antiwar hippie leftists evolved into radical libertarian, super-isolationist survivalists holed up in shacks in Idaho or wherever.

And Matt Yglesias, I'm cringing with anticipatory embarrassment over the likely contents of the book you are writing, which you might want to consign to the flames before putting it in bookstores with your name on it. I hate to be so blunt about it, but I think you are in way over your head when it comes to foreign affairs and national security policy, and should have stuck to areas of domestic economic wonkery like Social Security and health care where you were on much better footing.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 26, 2007 11:36 PM

The "check Iranian influence" theory is very, very popular in Washington...

Anyone who did not know at the very outset that removing Saddam and replacing him with something other than another Baathist would greatly increase Iranian influence in Iraq has no business making foreign policy for the United States of America.

I think we need a new category of high crimes against the nation called "criminally stupid".

Posted by Arun | July 27, 2007 12:04 AM

I'm not sure if I agree with Dan Kervick, but you bring up some good points. I have to take issue with this though:

"They would want a peace conference, a coordinated international plan of action, possible introduction of peacekeepers and border patrols, financial bailouts, and practical steps to actually produce peace."

Wasn't this basically Kerry's position in the first debate against Bush when he started talking about a conference? I just can't see who would want in at this point. Germany is planning on increasing the size of its military for humanitarian purposes, but that won't be ready for at least another year. The French won't do it. The British want out and the Spaniards already have gone out. The Australians also want out. No Latin country would go in. The South Asian nations and Canada already contribute more troops in general towards humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. I doubt Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt or other large Muslim nations would be involved. There aren't many large African nations out there that lack the institutional corruption and have a large enough population and economy to put such a force on the field. Japan legally probably couldn't do it. Thailand only sent over like 12 troops in the first place and they just had a coup. That basically leaves the Russians and the Chinese. I would bet that they would just make the situation worse. Consider how many bad things some American troops have done in Iraq (Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc.). The Russians would definitely be worse, as shown in Chechnya. That leaves Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia pretty much, who would likely just carve out their own spheres of influence, which would likely end in disaster.

There might be some chance of this if 1) we give up training government troops, 2) we elect someone who could possibly put this together (possibly any of the three Democratic front-runners, but none of the Republicans, including Ron Paul), 3) the world actually starts trusting us again, and 4) the situation's death spiral stalls a bit in its trend downward enough that foreigners would be potentially less scared of going in (the scarier a situation is to go into, the less likely you'll go there. That and racism is a big reason it takes the cops 3 hours to answer a 911 call in Compton). I really don't see this scenario coming to pass.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 1:49 AM

This plan also needs the eating of Irish children.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 2:09 AM

As it happens, Bill Lind is a funny guy.

Posted by Dick Durata | July 27, 2007 3:07 AM

I disagree with Matt, whose position on Iraq eerily resembles Bush's "get on with life" attitude towards the problem. Dan makes some very good points, but as Reality Man points out, international involvement is going to be a really, really hard sell and might not materialize at all in the next couple of years.

I think it is important to realize that Iraq is a failed state and that failed states in general don't fix themselves and are generally not fixed by neighboring countries that have vested interests there. Even if one was to consider Matt's Kissingerian/Rumsfeldian position, it wouldn't make any sense strategically, since failed states are the greatest danger to security in the post cold-war world.

Posted by novakant | July 27, 2007 5:28 AM

I don't know that we can say whether Iraq in the wake of a US withdrawal is a failed state. It may well be that the various factions with popular bases -- everyone but AQM -- can talk/fight themselves relatively quickly to an equilibrium of some kind. There will be a role for Sadr in this, and maybe a significant one, in Baghdad anyway, and elsewhere in the South -- but it's not really for us to say.

What is for us to say is that we lack capability (diplomatic and political, more than military, but then it's not really a military problem) to acheive our war aims. Either we need new capabilities, or we need new aims. The former is not possible, apparently, and so we have to match what we want with what we can get.

Posted by CharleyCarp | July 27, 2007 8:05 AM

Yo Dan Kervick-

What you're upset about vis a vis the current options in Iraq is exactly why the anti-war left didn't was against going into Iraq to begin with. They knew it would probably lead to a very pitiless set of choices down the road. You're basically dead wrong: The anti-war faction isn't entertaining Buchananite "solutions" to the Iraq problem because they're blinded by hatred of the neocons. They're just acknowledging and accepting that the initial decision to go to war was bound to leave us facing a set of Buchananite solutions to the Iraq problem. It's called facing reality. Reality Man sufficiently points out the flaws in your would-be pragmatic humane way forward. Nothing wrong with it in theory, but it ain't gonna happen.

But you did a great job of crystallizing why this war was such a terrible idea to begin with.

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 8:33 AM

An mere equilibrium would still be a failed state. For a state to succeed, you need a political compromise that satisfies the major groups. There is some truth to the notion that people eventually get tired of fighting (e.g. Bosnia), though it might take years or even decades for that to occur, but even then most solutions (e.g. Dayton) haven't been homegrown, but involved third actors (NATO, UN). It seems that some observers envision a kind of cathartic process occurring in Iraq relatively quickly after a US withdrawal. I think that is a huge gamble, that doesn't have much historical support - they could just as well go on fighting for the next 10 years. I don't think there is any way around a political compromise. I'm not saying that the current US policy is helpful at all in its focus on military means, or that forging a compromise will be easy, it might even fail, but now is the time to seriously start trying.

Posted by novakant | July 27, 2007 8:35 AM

Reality Man,

Here's more of what I have in mind:

1. Spheres of influence carved out by neighboring countries inside Iraq would be much less bad than the one group uber alles free for all approach Lind seems to favor.

2. Prior to the commitment of any other foreign forces into the country for pacification or peace keeping, something else would have to committed: Money - lots of it. We need to see conditional, multilateral commitments of cash and other aid for reconstruction and development in exchange for verifiable political behavior and results inside Iraq. If the pot is sweet enough, then those who want a piece of it will do what is necessary to put extremists in the back seat.

3. The administration of stabilization and reconstruction should be organized at the level of provincial governments, or other sub-regional administrative units - even cities, or neighborhoods or "wards" in cities like Baghdad. The goal should be to enable and encourage local groups to establish order in their own particular areas. The preliminary establishment of administrative units should be worked out with significant consultation with the Iraqis themselves, but the final call on administrative units needs to come from the international community, clearly headed by the regional working group.

4. This preliminary division into administrative units should not involve any pre-decisions on partition, regionalism, federalism or unified government as a final status. But any future movements in the direction of a unified state is to be determined by discussions among representatives of the administrative units, who will have the ability to deliver their people in any agreements, not discussions among the weak and highly unrepresentative "government" in Baghdad.

5. Participation in this plan should be compelled by the withholding of funds and the means for security from administrative units that refuse to opt in. This process will also involve some violence, as there will be struggles for power within some districts that are not already coherently organized right now, but it will be much less violent than a Lind-style national death match.

6. The most important factor in a resolution of the Iraq conflict is a credible evidence of a commitment by the major external players to a common approach. The warring parties inside Iraq need to understand what assistance they can and can't expect from potential allies outside the country. Right now, it is the great uncertainty about the fluid international situation, and the continued divisions and hostilities among the major foreign players, that is most responsible for the continued fighting inside the country. The jostling of the competing factions is based on chancy expectations about whether the US is or is not going to leave, and when; about whether or not the Americans will or will not work hard to continue to exclude Iran from a significant role; about whether the Saudis will or will not permit volunteers for their own country to rush in to fight in a civil war following the US exist; and about who is or is not going to get the money and guns they need to organize themselves into a viable political community.

7. Highly visible high level US talks with Iran, the Saudis and others in the region, followed by a credible joint declaration and plan from that group underwritten by the UN, and then followed by substantial and highly visible efforts at real coordination and cooperation, would send a strong signal to those inside the country that the days of playing one external power off against another, or of hoping for some foreign savior to come in and help one particular community dominate the others, are over.

8. The US needs to make it clear it is getting out. Nobody else wants to participate so long as the US is holding the bag. But once it is clear that the US is leaving, the natural global interest in what is clearly a global problem - insecurity in the Gulf region - and the prospects of a security vacuum, will prompt the international community to organize itself toward a solution.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 27, 2007 8:35 AM

Yo Dan Kervick-

What you're upset about vis a vis the current options in Iraq is exactly why the anti-war left didn't was against going into Iraq to begin with. They knew it would probably lead to a very pitiless set of choices down the road. You're basically dead wrong: The anti-war faction isn't entertaining Buchananite "solutions" to the Iraq problem because they're blinded by hatred of the neocons. They're just acknowledging and accepting that the initial decision to go to war was bound to leave us facing a set of Buchananite solutions to the Iraq problem. It's called facing reality. Reality Man sufficiently points out the flaws in your would-be pragmatic humane way forward. Nothing wrong with it in theory, but it ain't gonna happen.

But you did a great job of crystallizing why this war was such a terrible idea to begin with.

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 8:39 AM

Seems to me that, for anyone whose primary interest in the region is oil, a pro-Iranian solution is inherently unacceptable. If Iran controls Iraq's oil as well as its own, it gains market power roughly equivalent to the Sauds. Whether our leaders would fear this for our own sake, or just because the Sauds own the Bushies, I don't know-- but I don't actually buy the idea that we could befriend Iran until we make amends for the coup against Mossadegh, which they remember even if we don't. (But Iranian oil dominance might finally persuade us to make a real effort at energy independence.)

Posted by Michael Bloom | July 27, 2007 8:39 AM

It's called facing reality. (...) Nothing wrong with it in theory, but it ain't gonna happen.

The refusal of some on the left to engage their brain beyond "let's get out and let the chips fall were they may" continues to amaze me. (And since I've been against this war from the beginning, you can spare me the lectures about how wrong it was.)

Posted by novakant | July 27, 2007 9:07 AM

Jozef wrote Not only should we take out their weapons facilities but crippling their entire infrastructure so that at least 30-40 million of their people are without electricity, petrol or food for a long time would show people that there is a line you don't cross with the US.

One of the consequences, as obvious as "if you fight a war people will be killed", and thus perhaps not explicitly spelled out, is that if the US does this it will be left with no allies in Asia, except perhaps for a reluctant Taiwan.

Posted by Arun | July 27, 2007 9:18 AM

The refusal of some on the left to engage their brain beyond "let's get out and let the chips fall were they may" continues to amaze me.

The insistence of so many that we can and should continue with policies that have no chance of success, and are actively harmful to us and to others, amazes me. Our current government is simply not capable of managing the points set forth in Dan Kervick's 8:35 am post. It can't manage the tasks delegated to the US in that list, and it can facilitate the points within the responsibility of Iraqi factions. It has neither competence nor credibility. It seems to have as its primary war aim, at this moment, preservation of the presidential ego.

Iraq is a very different kind of society from Pakistan or Somalia, and I don't think it's at all unrealistic to think that the Iraqis will be able to work out an arrangement that keeps it somewhere above the 'failed state' line. And I've got no objection at all to non-military US help, through a multi-lateral vehicle of some kind, after we're out. We're currently too wrapped up in our own tribal dramas, though, to be of any real use in helping to solve Iraq's problems.

Posted by CharleyCarp | July 27, 2007 9:35 AM

can't facilitate

Posted by CharleyCarp | July 27, 2007 9:37 AM

The refusal of some on the left to engage their brain beyond "let's get out and let the chips fall were they may" continues to amaze me. (And since I've been against this war from the beginning, you can spare me the lectures about how wrong it was.)

I engage my brain about it all the time, chump. I'll spare you a lecture but you have to promise to stop accusing people who've honestly arrived at a different conclusion that you of not having thought about it. In the meanwhile feel free to post your comprehensive realistic brain-engaged plan for success in Iraq.

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 9:53 AM

Yo Dan Kervick-

What you're upset about vis a vis the current options in Iraq is exactly why the anti-war left didn't was against going into Iraq to begin with. They knew it would probably lead to a very pitiless set of choices down the road. You're basically dead wrong: The anti-war faction isn't entertaining Buchananite "solutions" to the Iraq problem because they're blinded by hatred of the neocons. They're just acknowledging and accepting that the initial decision to go to war was bound to leave us facing a set of Buchananite solutions to the Iraq problem. It's called facing reality. Reality Man sufficiently points out the flaws in your would-be pragmatic humane way forward. Nothing wrong with it in theory, but it ain't gonna happen.

But you did a great job of crystallizing why this war was such a terrible idea to begin with.

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 9:54 AM

Man, I hafta figure out why my laptop is resubmitting stuff I posted. Guess I'll stop hitting the refresh button.

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 9:56 AM

Yes Bill, I know the initial decision to go to war - which I deplored - was stupid, and that as you say it was likely to leave us with bad outcomes and pitiless choices. But frankly, now that those bad outcomes are upon us, I don't believe that we are seeing a lot of constructive or creative dialogue about the specific range of pitiless choices in front of us, about identifying the least bad option among those choices, or about what it would take to organize and mobilize a movement of support, nationally and globally, behind that least bad choice. It's mainly just a lot of self-indulgent, brainless told-ya-so domestic politics, and obstreperous arms-crossed posturing.

And it has all been folded into the typical vapidity of a presidential campaign. Even if one thinks that it will be impossible for anything constructive to happen before a Democrat gets into the White House, that doesn't excuse the absence of an intelligent, in-depth discussion of options, which might at least have the result of pushing candidates into engaging with, and endorsing some of those options. Instead we've got people choosing up political teams, and arguing passionately and at length in defense of their own favored candidate's short list of content-free, idiot talking points.

And I do believe there has been way too much left wing footsie with the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 27, 2007 10:00 AM

The insistence of so many that we can and should continue with policies that have no chance of success, and are actively harmful to us and to others, amazes me.

I have not favored continuing with the current policies and neither has Dan, quite the opposite.
Unless, of course, you see any proposal that goes beyond withdrawing the troops and hoping for the best as a continuation of the current policies.

Posted by novakant | July 27, 2007 10:02 AM

The talk of Iranian influence really amounts to smoke and mirrors when one considers that the vast majority of (foreign) jihadis currently killing American soldiers in Iraq are coming from our 'great ally' Saudi Arabia. The alleged meddling of Iran is at most a very tiny part of the insurgency when it comes to attacking U.S. troops--if it amounts to anything at all. This gets mentioned and then seemingly forgotten in the analysis. But let's attempt to really dwell on this sobering fact. In this context, all the unsubstantiated talk of Iran's supposed training of insurgents and supplying of bomb parts, etc., becomes rather Orwellian. It's clear that the real terrorist threat to America remains from cells deriving out of radical Wahhabi Sunnism (you remember, those guys that actually attacked us on 9-11, and btw, practically all of them were Saudi, remember). I have yet to see any coherent evidence that Iran presents any kind of threat to the United States outside the context of our occupation of her next-door-neighbor, Iraq. The countries that harbor the real global terrorist threat to us are both our nominal allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Why is it so hard for us to address the true underlying dynamics and cultural/geographic sources of the terrorist threat to America? Why the fanatical focus on Iran coupled with the relative down-playing of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda generally, and the Wahhabi radicalism which does directly threaten America? I feel like there's something dishonest and diversionary in our whole ME discourse.

Posted by Warren | July 27, 2007 10:13 AM

I don't believe that we are seeing a lot of constructive or creative dialogue about the specific range of pitiless choices in front of us, about identifying the least bad option among those choices, or about what it would take to organize and mobilize a movement of support, nationally and globally, behind that least bad choice.

I guess I just disagree. I think there's a lot of constructive dialog, and it so happens much of it involves discovering, or rediscovering, how organizing a movement of international support to "fix Iraq" would be utterly impossible at this point. Not to trot out Powell's Pottery Barn analogy but...I just don't see how you can organize a movement of support when the three major parties with much to gain or lose are Iran/Syria, Saudia, and Turkey. A massive U.S. military presence can keep the lid on that, but we simply can't sustain that presence indefinitely. Domestic politics won't allow for it, and it's completely unreasonable to expect that they should.

It's mainly just a lot of self-indulgent, brainless told-ya-so domestic politics, and obstreperous arms-crossed posturing.

But come on. It's silly to actually go on bitching about that. That's the way the world works. You're never going to have an absence of domestic political posturing about controversial foreign policy from either party.

And it has all been folded into the typical vapidity of a presidential campaign. Even if one thinks that it will be impossible for anything constructive to happen before a Democrat gets into the White House, that doesn't excuse the absence of an intelligent, in-depth discussion of options, which might at least have the result of pushing candidates into engaging with, and endorsing some of those options.

Presidential campaigns are never about intelligent in-depth discussion of options. Who are you criticizing? Both the left and right apparently. In-depth, constructive discussions happen in think tanks and (hopefully) once you're in power.

Instead we've got people choosing up political teams, and arguing passionately and at length in defense of their own favored candidate's short list of content-free, idiot talking points.

(Shocked, shocked.) Leaving Iraq is not a content free talking point mind you. When you're in a hole you should stop digging. That's actually pretty intelligent advice.

It makes some people furious that there are no good options in Iraq. Unless you think maintaining a permanent force and spending countless more billions on it is politically sustainable over the long term here in the U.S., then the lesser of evils is in fact a more or less complete U.S. withdrawal. That doesn't mean we won't have to go back some day; but the reality is we simply can't maintain our current presence there for very much longer.

And I do believe there has been way too much left wing footsie with the likes of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

Involuntarily arriving at a parallel agenda to an opposing faction is not "playing footsie." That's just how politics works sometimes. It doesn't mean the sky is falling.

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 10:24 AM

Why the fanatical focus on Iran coupled with the relative down-playing of Bin Laden, Al Qaeda generally, and the Wahhabi radicalism which does directly threaten America?

That's no sooner asked than answered. We have a history of close ties to Saudi Arabia, we have a (recent) history of no diplomatic ties and sanctions with Iran, and Pakistan is a nuclear state. It's easier to stick with the enemies you already have than make new ones, even if they're the more appropriate enemies.

Now what conclusion you draw from that depends on how cynical you are. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the White House accurately does not view any of these threats as existential ones, and that therefore playing them for domestic political advantage is the order of the day. Another terrorist attack on the U.S. would probably strengthen those in power, who are beholden to war profiteers of various stripes -- so the game is to maintain power, not actually stop the threat. So where Saudia is concerned it's business as usual.

Posted by Bill | July 27, 2007 10:32 AM

Well, the head of Saudi Arabia isn't saying Israel should be wiped from the map, while the president/sock puppet for Iran's theocratic rulers has been saying this on a daily basis.

Having said that, there is an interesting front page article in today's New York Times which reports that the Saudis are part of the problem in Iraq and not part of the solution. They are trying to undermine the Maliki government, saying it's a pawn of Iran. The Saudis are a thousand more times hawkish on Iran than Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?hp

"Saudis’ Role in Iraq Frustrates U.S. Official"
By Helen Cooper

------- [clip]

"Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, “That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not.”"

Posted by Peter K. | July 27, 2007 11:45 AM

Given the pre-2006 political/media establishment consensus on the war, Charley Carp's point shouldn't just be limited to this President's administration --- "Our government is simply not capable of managing the points set forth in Dan Kervick's 8:35 am post. It can't manage the tasks delegated to the US in that list, and it can facilitate the points within the responsibility of Iraqi factions. It has neither competence nor credibility. It seems to have as its primary war aim, at this moment, preservation of the American ego."

On Kervick's list, American withdrawal needs to be moved from #8 to #1. The US doesn't have the competence to manage the process --- we need to let the UN/NATO/countries neighboring Iraq to formulate and implement the process. Obviously, the US needs to cough up funding but even $50 billion is much less than the Iraq war costs now.

Posted by H-Bob | July 27, 2007 12:47 PM

I like your post, Dan, but I do think you are way too dismissive of Sadr.

There were two great blunders made by the CPA when it was in power. The first, of course, was the knocking down of the Iraqi army and police force. The second blunder was just as big, and it was the using of the money available to reconstruct Iraq as a circle jerk for American corporations, instead of doing the obvious: huge, state supported projects to absorb the reportedly 40 to 70 percent unemployed in Iraq - and I assume that count is mostly male. In combination, of course, the CPA's maladministration proved deadly. If we were occupying even a peaceful country like Lichtenstein, you'd soon have a civil war on your hands if that is your program.

Out of that combo arose the class situation that we see today in Iraq. First, there was a burst of spending by the middle and upper middle class, and then there was the insurgency that has gradually driven the professional class out of the country. To compound the problem, we put Ba'athist hunter Chalabi or his allies in crucial places, just to make sure that we alienated America's natural allies - said middle and upper class - all the more, as many of them were, naturally, Ba'athist.

Given that background, there is no credibility to any plan that excludes Sadr. It will have no constituency in Iraq. Luckily for Iraq, however, Sadr is, among other things, an Iraqi nationalist. The extent to which he is simply faction driven was delineated by the sack of Falluja - as Allawi tried, before the elections, to endear himself with the Shi'a, and in particularly SCIRI, by going after Sunni insurgents, Sadr protested at first, but then was oddly quiet. At the time, this drove Sunni insurgents further into the arms of the anti-Shi'a extremists. But if - this is a big if - those extremists have exhausted their support, then a return to something like concord between Allawi and Sadr could well start to piece Iraq back together again. Northern Iraq will always be a sort of moon in the system, detached from Iraq but circling around it. That's eventually going to lead to a lot of grief - hopefully, grief the U.S. avoids getting its soldiers involved in, contra Kurdophiles like Peter Galbraith. Another unfortunate factor in this mix is the Bush administration, which will play spoiler and shitstirrer for the next year. That might be enough to blow things up. But if there was a real debate about the coordination between benchmarks and withdrawal, and if that debate resulted in funding with mandates that the Bushies had to obey, there is a glimmer of hope. It is possible to separate what should be of concern to the U.S. - political settlement between factions - from what isn't - contracts for oil fields written into Iraq's law. The latter is not something we should press on - the window dressing here is that this is about reconciliation, but the U.S. is too much the interested party to be an honest broker. However, the success in getting Ramadi Sunni leaders to turn against al quaeda should and could lead to another step - informal talks between these leaders and Shi'a counterparts. To my mind, no international framework is going to address this problem at all unless there is internal movement towards reconciliation. Otherwise, as was the case of Rwanda, internationalization becomes a vector for spreading violence.

The fear that Iran will take over Iraq seems to exaggerated to me. It was like the fear that the Soviets, allied to Saddam, were 'taking over' Iraq. Iraq is too big and too nationalistic to be taken over by its neighbor. If Iraq plays the Iranian ally for the next five years, something will happen to cause a break. Iran is not going to invade, and the trouble it can cause is as nothing compared to the trouble the Saudis are causing.

Posted by roger | July 27, 2007 1:44 PM

Idealism is a good thing, I engage in it myself. But I don't ever attach it to US government policy and practice. The US not only lacks the competence to carry out any complicated peace plan, it lacks the motivation.

The fact is that the US has a divide-and-conquer strategy, evidenced by its arming of both Sunnis and Shiites, with the intention of prolonging (and even widening), not settling, the Iraq war. Think Palestine. A great power must depend, apparently, on belligerency to maintain its existence. Follow the money trail.

The way to improve Iraq is to attack Syria and/or Iran, and the way to improve Afghanistan is to attack Iran and/or Pakistan, the thinking goes. They'd attack Cambodia again if they could think of an excuse (just kidding). The Pentagon is in full charge of US foreign policy, and don't look for any improvement under the Dems. Like Palestine this topic will be in the news fifty years from now, lacking a revolt by the troops, unfortunately.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 27, 2007 2:01 PM

Roger,

I agree with a great deal of what you say. Sadr is the leader of a very important faction in Iraq, and clearly will have to be an important player in any kind of stabilization plan for the country. But in the end, the Mehdi Army is is just a faction, one that hardly enjoys anything close to universal support in the country. I just don't see any realistic prospect of Sadr emerging as the ruler of the entire country of Iraq, such as it is, whether through Lind-style force or through diplomatic reconciliation. He is too controversial and sectarian. And the class issues we have discussed go back decades, well before the US invasion.

I don't think people should go around destroying states where they exist, and breaking them into pieces. But regrettably, the United States decided to launch an invasion of Iraq, followed by series of state-dissolving policies that did destroy the Iraqi state. I don't think that state is going to put itself back together in anything approaching its pre-invasion form, or be put back together by outsiders.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 27, 2007 2:29 PM

Novakant, I don't think switching from one thing that can't work to another thing that can't work is a meaningful change of policy.

Posted by CharleyCarp | July 27, 2007 2:37 PM

Dan, this is where we do disagree: "I don't think that state is going to put itself back together in anything approaching its pre-invasion form, or be put back together by outsiders." One could say the same about many a state - Columbia and Afghanistan come to mind. What I fear more is outsiders trying to take it apart, ie by something like the Biden idea. I disagree that Iraqi nationalism is a spent force. Rather, I think the competition is not for who represents the shi'a or the sunni, but ultimately, who represents Iraq. As for the class issue, well, class differences go back in all societies for centuries. One of the goals of the Baathist program was, obviously, to ensure a certain social welfare net. When class differences widen considerably is when that net is broken and the state doing the breaking doesn't even perform elementary security functions. The U.S. strategy of alienating the owning class via de-Ba'athification, while at the same time pumping consumer goods into Iraq and increasing by an amazing amount the number of unemployed and their time being unemployed was not a centuries old issue or even a decades old issue, it was a vast, ghastly nationwide blunder.

I'm not arguing that Sadr will be the leader of Iraq, of course. I can't imagine that happening. But a Sadrist politician could well be, and could well reach out to the disaffected Sunnis by reviving the old Ba'athist populism.

Remember, who would have said in 2003 that DAWA, a party that has historical connections to Hezbollah, would be ruling Iraq in 2007 - with American support? It is hard to predict these things, but the crucial factor is the Iraqis themselves, not American visions of Iraq.

Posted by roger | July 27, 2007 2:49 PM

I don't think switching from one thing that can't work to another thing that can't work is a meaningful change of policy.

But you would agree that we need some kind of policy towards Iraq, no? And don't get me wrong, I am for a phased pullout starting now, because the military solution isn't working. But it seems to me that some on the left regard any proposal towards developing a policy as somehow toeing the Bush-line. This is not the case. The fact that we might have both a failed state and a humanitarian disaster even bigger than the current one on our hands demands that we develop a plan, and some are doing just that.

Posted by novakant | July 27, 2007 6:11 PM

Peter K said: "Well, the head of Saudi Arabia isn't saying Israel should be wiped from the map, while the president/sock puppet for Iran's theocratic rulers has been saying this on a daily basis."

I don't see how your above statement addresses the question of the threat of Iran to the United States of America. You see, believe it or not, Israel and the United States are two separate, distinct countries (this basic empirical fact seems hard for some people to grasp). Iran is constantly presented in the MSM, and particularly on Fox and the right-wing noise machine, as a dire threat to the U.S. Again I see no compelling evidence for this. It's just stated over and over again without any real justification. If there is concern over the alleged threat Iran poses specifically to Israel, then we need to have some [intellectual honesty] in this debate and be clear and transparent about this matter. The American people should be the ones to decide how much they want their own foreign policy tweaked in the interests of another nation's security.

On a side point, professor Juan Cole and others have disputed the translation/interpretation of Ahmadinejad's statement calling to "wipe Israel off the map". I still think the statement is abhorrent, even if it is more in the Kruschev banging-the-shoe-on-the-table with Kennedy vein and telling us our system is going to be the historical loser. But there is a difference. As for this being stated on a daily basis in Iran, you need to provide some evidence for your assertion.

Posted by Warren | July 27, 2007 7:13 PM

Warren, you have a double standard, or no standard.

There is no 'dispute' about what Ahmadinejad said, except between your ears. He Advocated the overthrow of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem.

Why is Ahmadinejad's advocating the overthrow of the Israeli regime any worse than the US threatening the overthrow of the Iran regime, especially considering the offensive actions we have conducted against Iran including economic sanctions, bombing threats to include nukes, anti-government radio broadcasts, naval fleets off their shores and other provocations?

Customarily, of course, the US doesn't merely call for the overthrow of regimes, it actually overthrows them, which it has done in Chile, Guatemala, Panama, Haiti and yes, Iran.

Iran hasn't invaded any country or overthrown any regime, or even threatened to.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 28, 2007 12:13 AM

What I fear more is outsiders trying to take it apart, ie by something like the Biden idea.

I don't think it is the role of the US or anyone else outside Iraq to either take Iraq apart or to put it back together. We are all still suffering with the results of past instances of know-it-all statesmen pre-judging end results, making promises, dividing up other people's territory and drawing stupid lines on a map.

The approach should be to take Iraq as it actually exists now, which is a highly fragmented and war-torn place, where the only effective governance that actually exists is local, and where visions of a restored national unity look increasingly fanciful. You try to pacify the country, and turn down the violence, so that people can then decide for themselves in something approaching a deliberative fashion, what sort of future they want. You don't create new divisions based on the plans of people in Washington or New York; but you do recognize those divisions that already exist, and work with them, rather than pretending those divisions don't exist, pretending that the "government" in Baghdad is the actual Government of Iraq and pursuing quixotic dreams of a reunified country.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 28, 2007 12:56 AM

Keeping things stirred up in Iraq, and not turning down the violence but exacerbating it, keeps the money flowing and the profits climbing, and there are ancillary corporate welfare benefits from increased military sales to other countries in the area.

News report: The Bush administration will announce next week a series of arms deals worth at least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other oil-rich Persian Gulf states as well as new 10-year military aid packages to Israel and Egypt, a move to shore up allies in the Middle East and counter Iran's rising influence, U.S. officials said yesterday.

Of course Iran hasn't threatened any country (certainly not Egypt) but, as we know, in war truth is the first casualty.

Selling worthless military junk is the primary lever the US has to keep allies in the fold (and US military advisors in their countries) since idealistic normal diplomacy has been largely abandoned to force majeure.

Posted by Don Bacon | July 28, 2007 12:22 PM

Don Bacon,

With all due respect, I don't think you read the whole of my comment very carefully, since you bizarrely and erroneously seem to think I'm on the opposite side of the issue from you. As for my having a double standard or no standard, what exactly am I advocating that makes you say this?

Posted by Warren | August 1, 2007 8:07 AM