But, of course it cannot represent the interests of a united Iraq ... such a thing is a fantasy, that requires careful nurturing to become a reality.

This is what happens when those who are ignorant of their own history attempt to impose something like their own institutions on another country. It certainly ignores the little thing called a Civil War in the US, generations after the founding of the "United" States of America ... and the United States of America itself was founded on generations of experience in de-facto autonomous state governments.

For all the talk of imposing a "Jeffersonian" democracy in Iraq, it is anything but, and what is missing is what is needed. The fact that the central government is the place where you decide who controls the bulk of the armed forces in Iraq is itself fueling the civil war. The Sunnis can never have control of the armed forces under those rules, so must fight to ensure that the armed forces of the central government do not enjoy a monopoly of force in the country. And with their only recourse irregular and illegal militia, the fight for a base for the militia leads inexorably to neighborhood by neighborhood ethnic cleansing in ethnically mixed Baghdad.

I've argued elsewhere that a more decentralized system could be built by extension of, rather than replacement of, the Iraqi constitution, but in any event, a less centralized governing system is required if we hope for Iraq to reach a political settlement and start rebuilding from the current ongoing civil war.

I think the the war opponents are being disengenuous when they talk about the responsibilities of the Iraqi government. They are doing this to help the average American bozo to get his head around the reality of getting out of Iraq. It has little to do with strategy. You are correct to indicate that the real strategy must be to get out with the least possible damage to long term American interests. However, this must not be confused with the moron strategy that says the consequences of our leaving are too dire to contemplate, so we must stay.

On another point, the real fantasy in the moron's speech was the failure to recognize that there is an enemy in Iraq that is supported by the majority of the Iraqi people and that enemy wants the US to fail.

To be sure, plans do exist -- from the Iraq Study Group's to the Gelb/Biden federalism approach -- and need to get more attention and debate.

What almost all of these plans have in common is that they call for diplomatic engagement with the countries surrounding Iraq, including Iran and Syria. And this is what the administration cannot bring itself to do.

If the Malicki government is not going to be the anchor of Iraq's future security, then the foundation of that security is going to rest with the major groups that already command the loyalities of large numbers of Iraqis. That includes parts of the insurgency. That includes Sciri. It even includes the Mahdi Army.

Ultimately, a lot of people who have not played well together before are going to have to be induced ro settle difference and make agreements. And getting that to happen will require substantial diplomatic involvement from the friends and patrons of these groups outside the country.

But having put Iran on the "Axis of Evil" back at the beginning of all this, how does the administration get out of that rhetorical box (even if it wanted to, which it doesn't) Do they now say: "on second thought, Iran isn't that evil"?

The real issue is properly framed: How do we get "out of Iraq with as little long-term damage as possible?"

The issue is no longer "victory," only the seriously deluded believe that Iraq can become a multi-ethnic post-enlightenment liberal democracy under Malaki or anyone else.

The issue is now containment of the damage done by the Bush team's arrogance and incompetence. What America needs to think about is how to prevent Iraq from becoming the vortex for a regional Shia-Sunni conflict that could quickly spread to include forces from Egypt to the 'Stans, from Turkey to India, with some assists from Russia and the USA.

By focusing on terrorism instead of the larger Sunni/Shia regional conflict it has unleashed the Bush team is once again fixated on the wrong threat at the wrong time.

I don't buy into the premise that the best case scenario if we pick-up and leave is worse than the worst case scenario if we stay.  The political situation in Iraq will only be worked out amongst the sects in Iraq...and as long as we stay and try to keep "the situation from deteriorating" the longer it will take to get resolution of the sectarian differences in Iraq, and that will mean many more Iraqis and American troops will die.

Libertine, I also believe as you do; but I will grant that I could be wrong. Maybe the situation in Iraq will deteriorate to a greater extent if we leave than if we stay. This seems to me to be an undeterminable question; we only get to know really the consequences of the acts we take, not the ones we do not. But Mr.Baer, as he often does, plays a deceptive game. He does not spell out to the best of his ability the consequences of the different possible actions as we do; instead he acts as if the (read: irrational, unpatriotic) left is incapable of understanding that the consequences of an American pullout could be dire. No shit, Sherlock. That is why we raised loud and persistent objections (while Mr Baer was silent or worse ...loudly supporting the Iraq disaster) at the start of this tragedy. Mr. Baer, don't try your transparent and dishonest game of blaming the tragedy of Iraq on the disloyal left; too many of your right wing fools in the DLC have already played this game for too long. It is a little long in the tooth now. You are the ones responsible for enabling Bush, and your friend little Bush-boy Lieberman is doing everything in his power to make this mess permanent. I am sure it is more pleasurable to you to impugn the antiwar left than to deal honestly with your own sorry history in this tragedy.

imperiling our interests in the region, and standing in the world. ... But what we can't do is to offer a soundbite, and hope to change the topic to health care or poverty.

Tell that to people in New Orleans. 

I never quite know what "our interests in the region" means, but I do know that people are poor and lacking health care even in true blue states like mine.

What we really can't do is abandon the needs of Americans at home to an obsession with the Middle East.  As to our "standing" in the world.  The world knows we've lost this war and most of the world predicted we would.

I argued above for a solution that does not fall into either of those two choices, which would indicate that the "simple logic" proposed here is rather the logical fallacy of false dichotomy ... presenting two alternatives as if they were the sum total of all possible alternatives, when in fact they are not.

I do agree that the two alternatives for a centralized unitary state in Iraq are the ongoing civil war we see today and the brutal suppression of one group by another group that we saw with Saddam. Indeed, it is the fear by the Sunni Arabs that they will end up in the Saddam solution with the role of Shias and Sunni Arabs reversed that is a main force fueling the civil war.

But assuming that a centralized unitary state is the only possible organization is simply absurd ... though, given our current President's contempt for the US Constitution, it is not surprising that Bush imposed an overly centralized, "winner take all" Constitution on Iraq.

A federal state with central government powers restricted to those explicitly set out and with a national guard consisting of provincial-level forces offers the ability to avoid the "winner take all" problem that is helping to fuel the civil war.

The sole bit of solace I find in this whole tragic affair is pointing out to my conservative friends that the French were right.

It isn't false dichotomy at all. If you don't have a central government, you must have separate states, whether alligned into a loose federation or not. And, even as brutal a despot as Saddam had difficulty keeping the sectarian conflicts under control, so it requires a fantasy outlook to believe a "democratic" leader could do it. If that doesn't demonstrate that Iraq must inevitably break apart into separate states I don't know what it takes. Notice that the "Iraqi police" don't hesitate to take Saddam-like actions, such as random killings, torture, etc. and still the sectarian violence continues. Saddam was Saddam for a reason.

So, given that Iraq will consist of separate states, probably three of them, our strategy should be aimed at greasing the skids so that can occur quickly and with a minimum of bloodshed. I don't see any consideration at all being given to doing that.

Hoppy in Sacramento

make this mess permanent

Your argument regarding a central government only applies to a unitary state with all power located in the central government. That is the system that will end up with a "Hussein" solution to keep things together, with the only question being which ethnic group is on top.

However, the unitary centralized state that Bush imposed on Iraq is not the only form of democratic government that has ever been put into practice. There is also the "federal" system, were there are sub-national regions, called "states" or "provinces", with entrenched powers.

Some examples of democracies organized as "federal" nations are the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States of Brazil, and the United States of Mexico. Of course, Resident GW Bush has only ever lived in the US of A, and in his imagination that is a unitary centralized state with power focused in the White House.

With all due respect you seem to want a guilt free withdrawal. As John Burns of the Times made clear the other night that Iraqis are very comforted by the presence of American troops. There is just no doubt that American forces reduce the beheadings and the drilling of holes in heads.

If the U.S. leaves, as happened after the U.S. left Vietnam, there is likely to be a slaughter. Whether it will be on the order of the "killing fields" or worse we won't know until it happens.
It would seem that the way it won't be so bad is if one side of the order wipes out enough people to completely take over.

This is not enoug reason to staty in Iraq with indequate forces that will accomplish nothing but we should not kid ourselves. It also seems a bit hard to see how this is the Iraqis doing. They did not invite the U.S. to do as incompetent job as the U.S. did in New Orleans. Hussein ruined is country which I gather was all right with some and to other come that takes a long time.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Wouldn't it be nice if we demanded that GWB and his advisers that kicked this "Tar Baby" be sent to Iraq with a one-way ticket and instructions not to return until this mess is solved.

OWH

That was one of the biggest red flags for me. The French are a difficult ally and they definitely pursue their own interests regardless of any other (as do we!) but I figured there had to be a good reason they were as STRONGLY against the war as they were. If Iraq had posed a genuine threat to the West, the French would have been on our side.

J. McCutchen

No surprise here is there? Following up on the Iraq Fiasco with the CIA's Political Islam Expert
. By Ken Silverstein.

Dr. Emile A. Nakhleh... retired in late June as the director of the CIA's Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program....

Nakhleh's view is that the situation in Iraq has spiraled out of control and is not likely to improve soon....

The American military presence in Iraq is increasingly “irrelevant” to the country's unrelenting violence, Nakhleh said, and the security situation is unlikely to improve over the next year, “whether we have 10,000 or 150,000 troops stationed there.” Even so, he continued, the occupation remains a magnet for attacks against Iraqis, and of course, against coalition forces.

“The violence has taken on a life of its own,” said Nakhleh. “It may get worse after we withdraw but it won't necessarily get worse because we withdraw. Given the situation, why continue to lose soldiers and kill Iraqis? It makes no sense. I'm not saying that we need to leave this minute—but we need an exit strategy.

For Nakhleh, the consequences of America's failure in Iraq will be numerous and long lasting. The United States has no credibility in the region, he believes, and at this point any policy initiative it undertakes will be perceived as being anti-Islamic....

Mitch McConnell is, in a perverse sense, correct in his injunction against Congressional "micro-management" of Bush War Policy. Salvaging the Debacle will require more than the Power of the Purse can achieve. Troop reductions, timetables, to be sure are crucial but without more are at best crudely idle exercises and at worst could be counterproductive without more....without a great deal more...without a complete reversal of US policy not only in Iraq but in the region.

The only viable vehicle for effective congressional action over the next two years is a repeal of the Iraq War Power Resolution itself, preferably one that terminates Bush's authority several months following passage.

The Congress needs to cut off more than Bush's War Chest, it needs to lay the axe to the root of the Decider's power to decide anything other than how to "micromanage" an exit by a date certain. Once that happens, the parameters of a wholesale policy reversal fix and the discrete policy detail more or less follow.

Sam Farr (D-CA) has introduced just such legislation.