...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. ...
We are not naive. U.S. withdrawal, whether concluded next year or five years from now, entails grave risks. But so does U.S. occupation. The question is how best to manage the risks....
Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.
My own view is that "meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds" is itself an illusory goal, and the challenge is working out a tolerable divorce or separation agreement, including custody of the patrimony--in the form of oil wells. (Marriage in that region is not necessarily limited to two partners.) A sensible "strategy" at this point entails something more than dispatching a fleet of helicopters to the roofs of the former palaces in the Green Zone. But it is time for withdrawal to begin, to prompt the necessary political process of facing the realities (and limiting the trauma) of the former Iraq's future.
No comments:
Post a Comment