The Saudis are definitely a problem but what is happening right now has to do with looking at the balance of power in the region. It’s realpolitik again as we try to give arms to one side that we consider the lesser of two evils. I’m not thrilled with that approach by any means but I do see how we’re increasing regional pressure on Maliki in this way because he clearly knows that the Shi’a in his country can’t assume that once the US leaves they can just wipe out the Sunnis, even with Iran’s help. They will not just be fighting the minority population of their country, they’ll have all the Sunni countries in the region to answer to.

As far as the surge goes, yes the left and many in the middle are skeptical about progress reports. Progress in the July report on benchmarks was somewhat inflated, and in the past we have received falsely rosy prognoses from the administration. I don’t think you can blame anyone for not putting much credence in one NYT’s editorial. As I said before, there may be military progress but that doesn’t mean the Iraqi govt will suddenly be able to function competently and without sectarian conflicts. Just today, the Sunni faction of the Parliament walked out. The surge can’t work if the Iraqis don’t work things out among themselves.

That’s an amazing observation, flying in the face of clear indications that Maliki does not WNT roconcilitation. He wants to protect the Shia militias who back him and to ensure Shia supremacy in all things. In fact, he has shown anger when US troops challenge the activities of those militias, which are the source of his power, BTW.
In fact, nattions in the region see Maliki as Iran’t stooge. As long as the surge is protecting Maliki’s survival, it is working against its stated goals of enabling reconcilitation.
The only thing that could possibly encourage reconciliation is the replacement of Maliki with someone who even wants it. In the meantime, we are just spinning our wheels while Iran gets stronger by the day.

Before another ‘seeing this through’ claim is make, it would be enormously helpful if we took a hard look at what it is we are enabling and protecting in the process.

The debate about how fast we’re going to withdraw the troops, regardless of what is actually happening on the ground, isn’t exactly what Petraeus had in mind, I don’t think.

And whether Maliki is an ill-intentioned sectarian who is waiting us out or a well-intentioned weak leader who can’t control the various factions makes little difference in the end.

I do think that its a step in the right direction that Rice is finally trying to get help from the rest of the Arab world in pressuring Iraq to reconcile- but it may be too little too late at this point.

OK- I admit all political actors choose to behave in their own self-interest. But, wouldn’t it be in their self-interest to reach the benchmarks? Especially,if that’s the only way to stem sectarian violence, rebuild their country and reach the goal of getting the US out of Iraq? If that’s the only way we’ll leave, they should at least go through the motions of reaching reconciliation.

Kim,
Doesn’t a lightbulb go on when you write this? If not, then let me try to flip the switch.

I highlighted the important point you seem to have inadvertantly made. Is it true that “the only way we will leave” is if the national government reconciles? Or is it true that the domestic US political situation is going to force us to leave if that DOESN’T happen? Don’t you see that the incentive for the government to meet the benchmarks is meaningless since we are also telling the Iraqis that we will leave if they DON’T meet the benchmarks?

There are many political actors in the Iraqi govt who want the US to leave before reconciliation happens. To them, US withdrawal is a carrot, not a stick. We are handing the carrot to the very people who are standing in the way of reconciliation. I happen to be of the opinion that Maliki is one of the ‘good’ guys who would create a coalition government, if he weren’t so weak. I believe it is other Shiites who are standing in his way, and he’s simply too ineffective to push past that opposition. That opposition is banking on waiting out the US troops so that they can then carry out their wishes to ethnically cleanse Iraq of the Sunni. Thus, by setting deadlines for benchmarks, we’ve made them fully aware that there is no need to compromise, they just have to be patient to get the whole pie. If there were still uncertainty or the perception that the US resolve to see things through was holding firm, then these actors would have to take what they could get and a compromise could be forged.

OK- I admit all political actors choose to behave in their own self-interest. But, wouldn’t it be in their self-interest to reach the benchmarks? Especially,if that’s the only way to stem sectarian violence, rebuild their country and reach the goal of getting the US out of Iraq? If that’s the only way we’ll leave, they should at least go through the motions of reaching reconciliation.

Kim,
Doesn’t a lightbulb go on when you write this? If not, then let me try to flip the switch.

I highlighted the important point you seem to have inadvertantly made. Is it true that “the only way we will leave” is if the national government reconciles? Or is it true that the domestic US political situation is going to force us to leave if that DOESN’T happen? Don’t you see that the incentive for the government to meet the benchmarks is meaningless since we are also telling the Iraqis that we will leave if they DON’T meet the benchmarks?

I think what Maliki and his ministers are doing goes beyond the normal self-serving politician to utter cynicism and corruption. Many of the ministers have looted funds that were meant to provide necessities for their people, and to do so while so many are suffering is criminal.

It may be that they are terrified that the Sunnis will somehow dominate once more or that they realize that the government is a joke- so why not help themselves to the goodies. But either way, the leadership to bring the country together does not exist in the present government, whose members are stalling and taking vacations while our troops die in Baghdad. This is a country that will have to go through a brutal cycle of violence and death in order to finally decide that their children’s futures mean more to them than the enmity of the past. As we’ve seen with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, this could easily go on for many generations.

Right. But this hardly makes this government special. Isn’t this just the normal run of democracy, demonstrated everywhere around the world? For instance, I don’t seem to remember that Bush or Perry stomped for sharing Texas’ oil revenue with, say, New Mexico. I guess the reasons for this are a) it’s not what their voters want and b) why should they support a neighbor state who voted for the other party. That’s what Maliki and the Shiite officials and lawmakers are considering, too, when faced with this US demand. What’s in it for them? The thanks of the US? Most of their voters want the US out of their country anyway. Again, it’s hardly surprising that this oil sharing bill generates as much enthusiasm as, say, a proposal to implement a 50% tax on gas…

The other problem is that the momentum at the end of the session was decidedly negative, with the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front threatening to quit the Parliament…permanently. Meanwhile, Shi’ite leaders openly mocked the Sunnis for creating the very conditions they protest against.

The political situation in Iraq is as dire as ever – potentially worse so now that activity between the Kurds and Turkey may heat up.

America is being taken for fools by these folks, who know that we’re afraid to leave them to their own devices.

I’m as chapped about this as anyone, but on the other hand it would be sweet irony if these members go home and find that the Iraqi peoples’ sentiment really is changing toward reconciliation.

What makes you think their going home to meet with the public. Many will go to other ME states or their homes in London(Chalibi) for a vacation. They hide in the Green Zone, I doubt if they spend much time in the Red Zone.

Is the alternate narrative that we’re now starting to hear from the likes of Michael Totten, Michael Yon, and O’Hanlon true?

Wow… two unabashed war cheerleaders say the war is going well!

This may be the case. And we shouldn’t forget, it’s an artifical nation, a victim of colonialism. And Shiites and Kurds wouldn’t lose much from separation, in fact, especially the Kurds would love that. It’s the Sunnis who have the major interest in retaining an Iraq nation, because on their own, they would be in a difficult strategic position and without natural resources to speak of. So, imho, to hold that nation together and to get a small share of the oil revenue, the Sunnis will have to eat crow. Both other blocks will simply opt out if national unity places too high a burden on them. I would like to see the odds for a nation ‘Iraq’ surviving the next 20 years, I guess they aren’t very good.

Nonetheless, I have come to the personal conclusion that Iraqi’s are culturally challenged to elevating nationalism above sectarianism. 4 years is enough for me to sense they would need 40 years to really figure it out.

The best I hope for is that during this campaign under Petraeus that the US Armed Forces generally skill themselves enough in CIS that they know how to operate effectively from the get-go the next time they need to.