Just can't get there on the surge

OP-ED: 'Letter From Baghdad,' By Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, September 5, 2007

Stunningly good piece by Friedman, who remains the hands-down best on-the-ground reporter of his generation on the Middle East.

This is a very honest analysis with a guy whose mind is willing to be changed on a dime, like any good reporter, but he just can't get there on the surge, noting we've achieved a tactical shift vis-a-vis AQI but not a strategic closure on Sunni-Shia strife in Iraq.

Again, Hitchens' breakdown still holds:
1) The Kurdish victory (and no, let's not get hallucinatory and start babbling about either "liberating" all Kurds much less "betraying" them all simply because the Kurdish regional gov doesn't instantly--or perhaps ever, quite logically given the history we've seen in eastern Europe and the Balkans--morph into a Kurdish-wide union.
2) the strategy of aligning Sunni tribes against AQI is working
3) the Sunni-Shia split is unabated and advanced and the "cleansing" continues, something our troops can mitigate in terms of violence but can neither stem nor reverse.

If the Sunni-Shia split is the key remaining dynamic, and our success with the Sunni meaning the bulk of our casualties are coming from Shia militias that are increasingly fighting each other as much as us, then we have two choices:
1) resurge on that dynamic (unlikely in the extreme due to rotational stress and political impatience back home) or
2) engage Iran either in engagement or punitive action.

You know Cheney's preference. The question is, Are you ready for the next war?

Me personally, I can't see--as I've said for years now--casually lumping Shia and Sunni extremists in the same "war on terror" bucket. To me, that's strategically unsound (too many enemies, too few friends) and politically unrealistic (if you want pluralism in the region, it cannot continue to feature repression of half the population, which means you've got to find a place for Iran--like it or not [just like the Palestinians]).

We can either seriously work toward pluralism in the region, facilitating its integration into globalization, or we can continue the same old, same old (unblinking support to Israel versus the Palestinians and unblinking support to Sunni dictatorships versus oppressed Shia minorities/majorities).

The big fly in the ointment of pursuing the same old, same old: Bush's decision (which I support still even though he now seems to regret) to create the first Arab Shia state--Iraq.

Comments

[J Canepa]

The idea of punitive action against Iran is both shortsighted and potentially disastrous. The limitation is not necessarily military but is economic. Right now there is a significant cloud hanging over the US economy. The private debt market is so bad that even commercial paper has few buyers. No one knows the true extent, but it ain’t good. Foreign sources helping us out have constraints, ranging from a dislike of aggressive military actions, your men-on- the- park- bench concept applies, and the fact that the private debt market has already burned many a foreign lender, making the placement of future debt doubtful.

Without this placement and to the fact that the US industrial base has been out sourced, the policy now has to change from imitating aggressive war to an active pursuit of peace. The only choice then is engagement.

[Francisco]

Sir,Do you think we're missing an opportunity by not engaging Ankara in our discussions with Iran? Ankara and Tehran (and Damascus for that matter), have had vastly improving relations due to their mutual problems with the Kurds. It seems accelerating Turkey's membership into the EU gives us improved relations with an uneasy ally that gets along well with Iran, but is also nervous about their stretch for a nuke. Bringing Ankara into the fold and at least improving our dialogue with Damascus could help provide the forum for productive discussion with Iran, I believe.