More Kagans

Kimberly Kagan out to prove that you can never have enough Kagans: "The U.S. should encourage the Iraqi government to defeat Iran's proxies and agents, and should provide the requisite assistance." As Marc Lynch observes defeating Iran's friends in Iraq would require the leading figures in Iraq's government to defeat themselves somehow.

Of course the best way to have curtailed Iranian influence in Iraq would have been to not invade the country. But at this point, an Iraq where Iran has substantial influence is essentially inevitable and we may as well try to reconcile ourselves to that fact and figure out ways to deal with it. Alternatively, we got adopt the Joe Lieberman strategy and start fighting made-up organizations like "al-Qaeda in Iran." Sounds fun!

Comments

"The U.S. should encourage the Iraqi government to defeat Iran's proxies and agents, and should provide the requisite assistance."

General Petraeus to act as Al-Maliki's "second" as the PM commits ritualistic seppuku?

Posted by David B. | April 3, 2008 12:19 PM

"The U.S. should encourage the Iraqi government to defeat Iran's proxies and agents, and should provide the requisite assistance."

But the Bush administration opposes assisted suicide.

Posted by Kiril | April 3, 2008 12:20 PM

Gee, if only we had a secular-minded, Sunni, anti-Iranian guy in charge of Iraq -- someone opposed to Al Qaida, who did not oppress women on account of their gender, who maintained a monopoly on force and kept political violence tamped down, and who had no weapons of mass destruction.

Like Joni Mitchel sang -- don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'til it's gone! Maybe Iraq wasn't paradise under Saddam, but we sure have turned it into a parking lot.

Posted by Egypt Steve | April 3, 2008 12:25 PM

As Marc Lynch observes defeating Iran's friends in Iraq would require the leading figures in Iraq's government to defeat themselves somehow.

It's not like that's impossible. The US has been doing a great job of setting up the conditions for its own inevitable defeat (Example A: The Iraq War). Maybe we could give out lessons?

Posted by Ned | April 3, 2008 12:34 PM

Ms. Kagan is president of the Institute for the Study of War.

Gee, what could said institute's outlook on war possibly be?

Posted by DM | April 3, 2008 1:05 PM

Too bad that Matt is entirely inaccurate here - Leiberman invented no group whatsoever. He said "al Qaeda AND Iran."

Matt - Hack extraordinaire. One shoud know better than to trust Hamsher ...

Posted by sbj | April 3, 2008 1:23 PM

At this point, is it really too late to try to set up someone like Allawi as a quasi-dictator/prime minister and feed him weapons and money, in the hope that one day he will gain control? Maybe portions of the Iraqi public would accept a secular, pro-West leader on the condition that American troops leave?

Shouldn't that have been the goal from the start?

But of course withdrawing our troops would compromise our control of the oil, so I suppose such an action would defeat the purpose of the war.

Posted by Scott | April 3, 2008 1:32 PM

At this point, is it really too late to try to set up someone like Allawi as a quasi-dictator/prime minister and feed him weapons and money, in the hope that one day he will gain control?

Yes. Too late. Sistani wouldn't go for it, Sadr wouldn't go for it, Badr/ISCI wouldn't go for it, the Sunni resistance groups wouldn't go for it, Iran wouldn't go for it, etc.

Instead of an insurgency of a minority you'd have an insurgency of the majority. Rooftops. Helicopters, etc., etc.

Maybe portions of the Iraqi public would accept a secular, pro-West leader on the condition that American troops leave?

With their fingers crossed.

Shouldn't that have been the goal from the start?

It was. Though the person was Chalabi not Allawi. Then we discovered that, contrary to Chalabi's assurances, the guy that left Iraq the same year that the Dodgers left Brooklyn wasn't actually all that popular. Who knew that he wouldn't have a base of support and a mandate to lead?

As an aside, I'm not sure that "should" have been the goal but, again, it was.

Posted by Eric Martin | April 3, 2008 1:57 PM

defeating Iran's friends in Iraq would require the leading figures in Iraq's government to defeat themselves somehow.

Maliki is pretty good at this.

Posted by mq | April 3, 2008 4:07 PM

"Matt - Hack extraordinaire."

No. that's me.

Matt is "Big Media Matt".

Besides that, it as McCain who invented "Al Qaeda in Iran" - Lieberman just set him straight - or as straight as somebody towing the AIPAC line could set him, which isn't much.

By the way, folks, not only was Chalabi not popular in Iraq - he was also an Iranian double agent. In other words, not much different than Maliki...Iran's probably disappointed we never made him President of Iraq - they could have bought him cheap. Wouldn't even have had to fund much of a militia, except his 700 or so thugs.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 4, 2008 4:47 AM

The answer to our problems in Iraq is very simple. Eliminate Iran from the equation. Whken bib bad John gets to the White House, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. See attached link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5303690722091228261&q=%22atomic+bombs%22&total=402&start=0&num=100&so=0&type=search&plindex=13

Posted by SLC | April 4, 2008 5:17 PM