A possible solution in Iraq? Not this one.

John Brady Kiesling suggests a possible solution to the Iraqi quandry. I think he's crazy.

He suggests that we pick a strong Iraqi leader, and then let that leader defeat us, and unite Iraq. OK, what would this achieve?

1. United Stable Iraq? Maybe. For the sake of argument, let's say yes.
2. Get us the hell out? Sure.

So it could achieve two stated goals. So why is it crazy?


It's crazy because of it's impact on terrorism and anti-Americanism. All the psycho Jihadists in the Muslim world would point at this as an Arab defeat of the US. It would empower Terrorists all throughout the region. It would have the same impact on the US around the globe as did Al Quaeda's terror victories in the 90s, and our withdrawal from Somalia.

You may recognize the author as the Diplomat who publically resigned last year on the eve of the Iraqi war. I remember listening to an interview with him on NPR's "Fresh Air" (here) and being less than impressed. The message I took away from his interview was "I disagree with the Administration, therefore they are wrong." This annoyed me. While he made a convincing case for the incompetance of the Bush State Department, his absolute conviction over his own infallibility was absurd.

Or maybe not. I just remember my feelings listening to it at the time. I don't have time to go back and listen to it again now.

In any event, I think there must be a third, and more important goal for the resolution of the mess in Iraq. The impact on the Security of the US, and the war on Terror must be the prime concern. Simply put, we should be safer after we pull out, then before we went in, and the situation for Terrorists should be worse. Kiesling's solution may be a victory for Iraqi's, but it would be a defeat for us not only on the battlefields of Messopotamia, but also in the fight with Terrorism. And that last point is unacceptable.

I guess this all comes down to how one views 9/11. For me, 9/11 was an act of War against the US that must be answered. And so far, it hasn't been answered. Sure, we toppled the Talliban, but Omar and Osama are still out there making trouble. Defeating a Terrorist organization isn't the same as taking out a regime. I'd be lying if I said I know how to go about it, and I think the current Administration doesn't have much more of a clue than I do.

If, however, 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the War on Terror, the analogy goes much deeper than merely a sneak attack. The warning signs were there for years, and it was predictable to some degree. 9/11 did not happen in a vaccuum. We are at war with someone or something. If it's Terror, so be it. My biggest fear is that this is the first open hostility in a much larger war between Islam and the West. I hope I'm wrong.

In any event, right or wrong, Iraq is the second battlefield in this war. We left off in Afghanistan before securing victory, and that may have been a mistake. Letting Iraq fall in defeat would seem to be another phenomenal mistake.

Of course, given our choices this November for the position of Fearless Leader, we're pretty much fucked no matter who's in the Oval office next year.