First option described as inevitable on many levels, as I continue to argue.ARTICLE: 'Dramatic change of direction' coming for Iraq, By Sharon Behn, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, October 19, 2006
Second option seems premature, given bloodshed required. Still, one of my "headlines from the future" on Iraq had a Musharref-like strongman stepping dowwn (or something to that effect), so clearly I'm not too surprised by that temptation.
How to reconcile the two?
As I argued back in Mar 05 in Esquire (the second "Mr. President" piece), killing the Sunni dream of any unitary state is the same narrowing choice we forced on Milosevic's Serbia in that fake state Yugoslavia that was unable to survive beyond dictator Tito's grip (although his clever use of cross-domination among the republics' elites kept the peace a good decade beyond his death). Pushing/allowing semi-autonomy for the previously beat-upon Shiia and Kurds does that, but it doesn't tame the sectarian violence, nor does it end the Sunni-based insurgency. For that, a tough guy on top who's empowered on security, but less so on politics and economics, is likely key, because an ungovernable space in Sunni-land is probably too unacceptable to the region's dictators.
Neither path is particularly sunny, pointing out the profound cost we incur for both lacking the SysAdmin force and our horrible mismanagement of postwar Iraq.
All Leviathan and no SysAdmin leaves George a dumb boy.
Thanks to James Riley for sending this in.