it seems to me that it’s quite difficult to deny that Iraq has become a major part of the war on terrorism over time after the U.S. invasion.

I’ll deny it. Al Qaeda simply isn’t a major player in the Iraqi conflict, today. It’s a battle between factions fighting for political supremacy. Those al Qaeda elements that are there, are there to get experience fighting against the Americans. They fight us on their own terms, at their own time, and if the fight gets too hot, they’ll simply leave.

Even if we completely destroyed al Qaeda in Iraq the civil war would continue to rage, and al Qaeda, as an organization, would continue to thrive.

Will a withdrawal of U.S. troops cause even more chaos? Most likely… yes.

I used to think that too. But today death squads roam the streets in Baghdad, ethnically purging entire areas of the city. Islamists are busy purging “peaceful” Basra of all opposition. Millions are fleeing the country and over 100 Iraqis die daily. In Lieberman’s 6-9 month “waiting period” another 15,000 to 30,000 Iraqis will die violently.

These are the things that I believed a continued U.S. presence would prevent. What’s your horror scenario?

My hope is that a partition plan would speed up this process without the violence.

But the question is, why would you think this? The various factions won’t be satisfied with their geographic and economic distribution unless a political solution could come about, so we are back to square one with needing a strong central government to allocate political power fairly among the groups. Otherwise we’d end up with three regions that would still be warring against each other; the only difference is that they’d be crossing into the other’s territory to do so.

And Nasrallah’s comments that were quoted/paraphrased in the Sy Hersch piece were very interesting. In another thread I commented about this, that I see from his comments that people in that region may see the US siding with partition as a veiled attempt to WEAKEN the country. Even though Marlowe correctly pointed out that Nasrallah would have ulterior motives for saying this (because his preference would be for Iraq unified under Shiite leadership), I still think that his thoughts on this may resonate with others in Iraq and neighboring countries. So I think we have to be careful about advocating for anything other than a unity govt.

But then there is the problem of Turkey and the Kurds

Yes and that will truly be a problem. That’s why we should – perhaps – work towards a very, very loose union, with a weak central government, etc.

I don’t think we have the right to interfere with what’s going on in Iraq, but there is something that tugs on me and says we have to do what we can to help the Iraqis out. I think splitting the country would the best solution given my mixed feelings about it.

But then there is the problem of Turkey and the Kurds, and I dont think there is anyway to keep the east from joining with Iran. Although, that’s not necessarily a bad thing if that’s what they want. The Sunnis might opt to become part of Saudi Arabia for all we know.

If Democratic leaders really felt that the surge had little to no chance of success, then the only responsible thing to do would be to pull the funding

I agree. Their lack of spine on this issue has reinforced my opinion that we really need a viable third party in this country.

And, my support for the surge would end if I thought it was truly an escalation; if this was the first of many “last efforts�. But think about it; unless you believe that Bush is insane enough to order a draft, there are simply NO MORE TROOPS.

I think people are calling it an escalation because there isn’t a set timeframe for their redeployment. The whole notion of a “surge” is just to escape comparisons to Vietnam anyways.

And for the record, I think announcing a draft would be the quickest way to end this war.

The sad thing is… I think that it’s too late for the U.S. to bring peace and stability to Iraq. I think that the Shia and Sunnis will battle it out sooner or later and that the one will dominate the other (the Shia will win of course).

But given that, how do you think we should proceed?

He’s entitled to his opinion and he certainly is in good company with it, so I’m not criticizing him for it. It’s just funny that people read into things what they think they see (I’m assuming you see Michael’s criticism of the surge as lukewarm because he previously was a supporter of the war, though you may have other reasons for seeing it this way.)

To clarify, I support the surge only as a last effort; I think that grave mistakes have been made in a situation that did not allow room for error, so I think at this point we have to adjust to a strategy of salvaging what we can. I also think it would be morally wrong to leave precipitously because we owe more than that to the Iraqi people (particularly the Sunnis who would likely be slaughtered), and I think it would be wrong for our troops because it would confirm that politics took precedence over policy.

I say this because: If Democratic leaders really felt that the surge had little to no chance of success, then the only responsible thing to do would be to pull the funding. Since they won’t do that, I’m forced to conclude that either they really do think there is some chance for success or that they are putting their political concerns above their concerns for the troops (being afraid that the big bad Rovian Republicans will label them as peaceniks). Either way they are playing political games- either not admitting that the plan makes sense because it would hurt them politically to do so, or not acting in a way that is consistent with their true beliefs about the plan.

And, my support for the surge would end if I thought it was truly an escalation; if this was the first of many “last efforts”. But think about it; unless you believe that Bush is insane enough to order a draft, there are simply NO MORE TROOPS. The whole point of the surge is that we’re taking everything we’ve got left and throwing it at the security problem (even to the point of accelerating training to put new troops into the theater more quickly), in an attempt to give breathing room for the political and economic growth.

I’m, indeed, not ruling out that the surge will be successful because, well, how can we be completely, 100% sure that it won’t?

I have again read your entire post. The notion that the “surge” strategy should be given a chance because there has been relative calm in Baghdad over the last month — other than several massive car bombings — is charmingly naive.

Lieberman’s point that one cannot be 100% that the surge will be successful or not, is quite right. I am a ‘critic’ of the surge; I don’t believe that the results will last, but, on the other hand, I cannot possibly be 100% that it will fail either. However, when talking about what policies to persue, it seems to me that one should focus on the most likely possibility. The most likely possibility is that it will, indeed, fail: Shiite terrorists have fled Baghdad for now, but something tells me that they’ll most likely return right after the surge ends.
[...]
Now, in response to Lieberman’s main point: if one fears that the surge will not work and that hell will break loose even more than now no matter what (unless the U.S. is willing to double the troops and stay in Iraq until, say, 2020)… should it really be expected of one to wait and see what’ll happen in the coming six months before one starts calling for a withdrawal? And, how says that if this surge won’t work, they won’t simply come up with another new strategy while repeating the same argument to stiffle debate (lets give it a chance, it might work, etc.)?

Why should I “find someone who is pro-war with more credibility than Liebermann”? I’m not pro-surge.