GETTING OUT OF IRAQ. Nearly everyone except Billy Kristol and John McCain agrees that the U.S. needs to reduce its presence in Iraq. Even George Bush has made "as the Iraqis stand up, the U.S. will stand down" as the centerpiece of his "strategy." Often, the debate is portrayed as "stay the course" (or the hilarious "adapt to win" spin of RNC hack Ken Mehlman) versus "cut and run" in partisan circles, but the reality is more complex. The American military has been consolidating its position into fewer, larger bases for well over a year now, while endeavoring to hand over security responsibilities to the Iraqi military and police. As we've seen, this approach has been hijacked by sectarian militias and criminal gangs, who together have rendered the government of Nour al-Maliki largely powerless. Any large-scale withdrawal will require some form of negotiation with the real centers of power in Iraq, among them some of those we are currently fighting. Since it's better to negotiate with fewer factions, in a way it's good news that various Sunni Arab insurgent factions are forming a united front against both the coalition forces and al-Qaeda. The latter just declared an "Islamic republic" in Anbar province, but is having trouble ralling other Sunni Arabs to its banner. While there are lots of unanswered question about who speaks for al-Qaeda in Iraq nowadays, this ought to present an opportunity for the U.S. to renew serious background discussions (through a third party if necessary) with the insurgency. It may not be time quite yet for a political settlement modeled on the Dayton Accords and with the inclusion of regional powers, but it's certainly time to start thinking along those lines. I don't expect anyone in Congress to call for what will easily be spun as "defeatism" until after the midterm elections are over, but I do anticipate that the Baker-Hamilton commission will propose something similar.
--
Blake Hounshell
