Spareink

I think that what Armando (actually not Kos) is taking issue with is more the tone of the Washington Post in taking a bit of a pollyanna view about what the constitutional process means. Although I don’t think it really matters in Iraq what the Washington Post thinks one way or the other, what many on this side need to appreciate is that the question of Iraq’s viability as a nation may be of more relevant interest than whether the provisional government meets a deadline on producing a piece of paper labeled “The Official Constitution” or not. Small groups pursuing armed struggle may not be a preferable alternative to a democracy, but it is evidently an alternative nonetheless, and one that will have to be settled if we’re ever going to have a nation that can be called democratic.

For the record, I’ve been trying to think about what I think should be happening with the US in Iraq these days. I think there is a whiff of Withdrawal in the air, to be sure. I think there is a great risk of a dysfunctional terror state being left behind if that happens, or else my initial prediction that the biggest benefactor winds up being Iran comes true.

I think the least bad option might be to recognize that the US simply cannot and should not continue fighting what is increasingly coming to look like a sectarian civil war. The US should be ready to consider Iraq an association of regions, like a confederation of Iraqi states, or some such, and allow Kurdistan to become independent, with oil rights in Kirkuk. Make Turkey accept this by promising them some form of acceptance into the EU (continuing the rapprochement between Chirac and Dubya) in exchange. The next problem is separating the Shiite majority from their Sunni former oppressors. Give the Shiites southern Iraq, make it’s capital Basra, and give them the oil as long as they don’t give it to Iran. Leave enough troops in what should be a semi-politically hospitable territory so that the Shi’ites will be protected and not be tempted to rely on the Iranians to do the protecting. As for Baghdad and the Sunni triangle, they can do whatever they want with it, they can make Saddam Hussein the emperor-cum-laude for all I care, but they will most certainly not have the oil, so they’d better figure out something to do. Admittedly, the place will probably be a terrorist training ground, like it is now, but they will not have a nuclear program or anything like the level of support al Qaeda had in Afghanistan, nor will they be paying anyone $50,000 to blow up Israelis for that matter.

This would by no stretch solve everything, but at least it would be a path of lesser resistance to the political fault lines that seem to be undercutting the “post-combat” phase. The slipperiest aspect would be this putative Arab Shi’ite state in Basra and it’s relationship with Iran- but in theory there should be any number of Arab states and a significant chunk of Iraqi Arab Shiites that would be amenable to it. And if the Shi'ites *still* can't get it together to take the political initiative and form a nation, then yes, get out, give it to Iran (since things couldn't possibly be worse with them anyway) and let them fight the Sunnis. God willing, that might even wind up spurring some political changes in Iran, in the end.