More realism, in the sense of common sense, from another sorta-neo-con, David Brooks (Times Delete). His idea of giving up Baghdad and focusing on protecting those few pools of order left in Iraq is, at least, a credible policy for withdrawal that has some chance of political success within Iraq. Money quote:
Perhaps it’s time to merge the military Plan B ‚Äî the surge ‚Äî with a political Plan B ‚Äî flexible decentralization. That would mean using adequate force levels (finally!) to help those who are returning to sectarian homelands. It would mean erecting buffers between populations where possible and establishing order in areas that remain mixed. It would mean finding decentralized governing structures that reflect the social and psychological facts on the ground.
The record shows that in sufficient numbers and with sufficient staying power, U.S. troops can suppress violence. Perhaps more U.S. troops can create a climate in which decentralized arrangements can evolve.
Practically speaking, it would probably mean withdrawing primarily to the Kurdish areas. The worst that can be said of David’s proposal is that it’s far more realistic than the leaked plans of the president. If the "surge" we are contemplating is indeed a mere 20,000 troops and if it is dependent on the pesh merga, and if it is accompanied by a puny $1 billion for reconstruction, then we know one thing: this is not a serious military proposal. It is a serious political proposal – to tread water in Iraq until Bush can hand it over to his successor.
The Dish 