Informed Speculation

Well, what’s new about that, you might ask? The Times gave up long ago. First, to the editorial:

WHATEVER THE future holds, the United States has not “lost” and cannot “lose” Iraq. It was never ours in the first place. And however history will judge the war, some key U.S. goals have been accomplished: Saddam Hussein has been ousted, tried and executed; Iraqis have held three elections, adopted a constitution and established a rudimentary democracy.

But what now? After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened.

The mire deepens against a backdrop of domestic U.S. politics in which support for the ill-defined mission wanes by the week. Better to begin planning a careful, strategic withdrawal from Iraq now, based on the strategies laid out by the Iraq Study Group, than allow for the 2008 campaign season to create a precipitous pullout.

With four out of five additional battalions now in place, there is no reason to believe that the surge will help bring about an end to what is, in fact, a multifaceted civil war. The only bright spot is in Al Anbar province, where Sunni tribal leaders have joined U.S. forces in the fight against foreign Al Qaeda fighters. They deserve our continuing support. But as long as civil war rages in Iraq, even the post-surge force of 160,000 troops cannot achieve more than marginal progress.

As Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. war commander, has acknowledged, the solution to Iraq’s problems cannot be military. Yet political progress has been backsliding. It was only frantic White House intervention last week that prevented the resignation of the last Sunni leaders in the Shiite-dominated Cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. The Sunnis say the Maliki government is sectarian, corrupt and incompetent; and they’re right. The Bush administration should convene national peace and reconciliation talks as early as possible — say June 1. All of Iraq’s parties, tribes, ethnic and sectarian factions, except for Al Qaeda, should be invited to the table.

But an important element needs to be taken off the table: American blood. The U.S. should immediately declare its intention to begin a gradual troop drawdown, starting no later than the fall. The pace of the withdrawal must be flexible, to reflect progress or requests by the Iraqis and the military’s commanders. The precise date for completing the withdrawal need not be announced, but the assumption should be that combat troops would depart by the end of 2009. Iraqi political compromise is more likely to come when Washington is no longer backing the stronger (Shiite) party. U.S. troops could then be repositioned to better wage the long-term struggle against Islamic extremism.

If you clicked through, you know that what’s new here is it’s not the New York, but rather the LA, Times that is throwing in the towel, albeit in a far more responsible manner than their New York counterparts (it’s inconceivable that the proteges of Gail Collins would have ever supported the surge, or that they would acknowledge that some good came out of the war).

More troubling than this spread of pessimism is that the central allegation about the weakness and incompetence of al-Maliki’s government is correct. Time and time again, our hopes have smashed against the shores of his favoritism of the Shiites.  Two million troops will not bring Iraq together; only the sense that there is a nation worth preserving will do that, and as long as the Sunnis feel (alas, rightly) that their government doesn’t give a damn about them, then progress will not be made.

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner made it clear that if the fat lady has not yet sung, she is clearly warming up:

The House Republican leader said Sunday that GOP support could waver if President Bush’s Iraq war policy does not succeed by the fall.

But first, the president’s troop increase deserves a shot, Minority Leader John Boehner said.

“We don’t even have all of the 30,000 additional troops in Iraq yet, so we’re supporting the president. We want this plan to have a chance of succeeding,” said Boehner, R-Ohio.

“Over the course of the next three to four months, we’ll have some idea how well the plan’s working. Early signs are indicating there is clearly some success on a number of fronts,” he said.

But, he added, “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B?”

I have no doubt that the need for urgency has been pressed up on al-Maliki many, many, many times.  It appears to be finding a deaf ear.  Progress is needed, and quickly. 

Passing the oil-revenue-sharing plan would be a start, a damned good one…because right now, things aren’t moving forward, and certainly not at the pace required to rebuild domestic political support…