A key premise of the president’s speech is that the alternative is so horrifying we have no choice but to press on. But this assumption, like the fixed WMD assumption before the war, risks freezing our thought and immobilizing strategy. The assumption deserves close examination. I’ve argued that withdrawal to Kurdistan, allowing the Sunni and Shia forces in Iraq to reach their own settlement through a real civil war with a real outcome, is something we need to think through. It may be less damaging to our interests than the surge. Its most important aspect is the way it changes the narrative of the war from Osama’s "Islam vs the West" to "Islam vs itself". I think that’s a strategic game-changer that may redound to our long-term advantage. It requires a United States prepared to let go of trying to control the region and stabilize it. I fear the president is unable to even think in such terms. But that doesn’t mean we cannot. I air this scenario in this post over a month ago and this one yesterday. A reader throws in his two cents:
We are not going to be able to win the argument on the war until we enter into a real, cold-eyed discussion of what the alternative to direct military engagement would likely look like. Up to now our collective thinking has revolved around a choice between more of the same versus giving in to inevitable chaos. It’s the "inevitable chaos" alternative that needs to be challenged and analyzed.
Would Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda in Mesopotamia based in Anbar hold a lovefeast to celebrate our departure, or would the Sunnis immediately commence a hunt-down of the alien, troublesome jihadis? (Maybe the Taliban can push around the disparate Afghans, but I don’t think that the Iraqi Sunnis would put up with that shit.) Would Iraqi Shia, having finally gained control of their own destiny, be inclined to throw open the door to the Persians next door? Would the Shia majority be interested in occupying the oil-less sands of the Sunni Triangle and would the Sunni minority be interested in a never-ending war against the overwhelming Shia majority if a real deal on oil revenue could be put in place? Would the Kurds be paranoid about an Arab invasion, and would the Turks be paranoid about a Kurd invasion if there was an American rapid response force in place in Kurdistan?
I’m just an ignorant slob sitting way back in the bleachers, but I think I know enough to be aware that these and other topics that can define the probabilities of an alternative to Bush’s war are not being rationally and thoughtful discussed. It’s past due.
Agreed. Over to you, realist Republicans and sane Democrats.
The Dish 