Our Most Reasonable Wish and Hope for Iraq

The President, John McCain and everyone else who is standing up to the Democrats' "cut and run" idea know full well that if we cut and run now it would lead to so many bad things that it would be hard to innumerate them all:

--The slaughter of most of the well-meaning patriotic citizens of Iraq who naively joined our effort for a better and more democratic life for their country. this would include the most educated, well qualified and politically moderate of the Iraqis -- the bedrock for hope for future generations. Many of their type would be lucky to get out of the country as refugees, or turn on their dreams for survival, and join the perpetrators of sectarian division.

--Sectarian violence on a scale that would be unimaginable -- and which we would probably have to come back in to stop.

--Vacuums of power are abhorred in geopolitics, and one in Iraq would surely suck in the Iranians, Syrians, Turks and the involvement of the "moderate" Sunni nations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, leading to greater instability in the Middle East and its oil supplies, and imperiling our allies in those countries. If King Abdullah fell, or if upon Mubarek's death Egypt were to go the wrong way (a good possibility, more likely if Iraq spins further out of control), Israel will be further existentially threatened, and bases for export of Islamist terrorism against the West and its interests will multiply one thousand-fold. I had hoped for an Arab League stabilizing force for Iraq, led by Egyptians and Jordanians, but no such luck -- the "moderate" Arabs are hopeless, and the pursuasive powers of our foreign policy machinery is even more hopeless at this point.

--American influence in the Middle East, already substantially diminished, will drop to zero -- our word will mean nothing and will be accorded that much respect.

--the impact on our military and our foreign policy will be tragic for a generation to come.

Bush's 20,000+ troop surge is militarily likely too little, too late in and of itself, other than in presenting itself to the Iraqis as our last gasp attempt to help them, and then, it's assumed, "we're out" sooner than later. In that regard, we should watch carefully the next several weeks the deployment of Iraqi units to Baghdad, because they are the real key to any hope, and this is the ironic part. Iraq needs stability now more than it needs democracy. Organically imposed stability can provide the possibility of democracy later, but without such stability, there will be chaos. The only way that stability will be accomplished is by two measures:

1. America's ability to "isolate the battlefield" by containing foreign influence in Iraq. The seizures of Iranians and Syrians in Iraq during the past week, deployment of two aircraft carrier battle groups to the area for interdiction and of anti-air defense batteries to our friends there, very well may be precursors to a more muscular US strategy to keep the Syrians, Iranians and others out of this Iraqi conflict. Expect "US hot pursuit" actions to follow across the borders of these countries to drive this point home. Expect this reasoning to provide cover for the destruction of Iranian air defenses, which could be helpful for other endeavors later.

2. Much more importantly, Iraqi forces must not only secure Baghdad and its environs, but do it with such bone-crushing ferocity that it catches the attention of the Sunni and Shiite radicals throughout the country. Unfortunately, as uncivilized, uncomfortable and ugly on the 6:30 news programs as these actions will be to Western consciences, they are what will be necessary to subdue radical elements that are today out of control. All the better, the stability that such actions could bring to Baghdad and its periphery would hopefully come at the hands of one, uncorrupted secular, Shiite military man on white horseback (or at least so his legend shall proclaim), upon whom the collective imagination of the Iraqi nation could focus, in both fear and respect (in that order). If we are lucky, he is more Ataturk, a fierce secular nation builder, than Saddam, a bloodthirsty lunatic.

Yes, I know it sucks to be hoping for the return of a mini-Saddam (but this time a Shiite), but we need stability now more than anything else there, if we are ever to get out of this situation with anything to salvage. The challenge is how such a person will emerge when US military units are wedded to Iraqi ones -- will US commanders operating alongside an Iraqi unit allow it to torture and summarily execute hundreds or thousands of fighting-age men, and perhaps burn their houses and families too, in order to make a point? I hope so, for this is the lesser cost for both the Iraqis, our friends in the region, and us. Practically speaking, all the other choices are much worse.