The LA Times offers up a pretty useful political-level analysis of how things are going in Iraq. Though the security situation has improved -- largely due to ethnic displacement and the empowerment of individual warlords to police their own domains -- the larger push towards reconciliation and governmental consolidation has gone nowhere. Particularly interesting is the article's suggestion that the prominent Sheikh assassinated in the aftermath of the "Anbar Awakening" was not killed by al Qaeda, but by members of his own security detail, and that Maliki is routinely being fed disinformation by a small group of hardliners who dominate his circle. Liberals make this point rather often and I think conservatives believe churlish for it, but there really does need to be some actual strategy governing what we're doing in Iraq. Whether you believe we're keeping a lid on the violence or you attribute it to internal factors, there needs to be some defined bar for success, above which we can begin leaving the country, below which we need to reassess our approach. At the moment, there's nothing even close. Rather, there's a massive commitment of men and material and a political establishment desperate to trumpet anything that even resembles good news, even if it flies in the face of their articulated goals. If we've abandoned reconciliation, as our glee over Anbar suggests, then we need to say that. If we haven't, then the American people need to hear a plausible strategy for achieving Iraqi unity. But some sort of policy actually has to be explained, implemented, and followed. You shouldn't play Calvinball with people's lives.
