Now that the latest political fraud in Congress about the war in Iraq has been quashed, maybe the intelligent among us can figure out what to do next. Bearing in mind, of course, that there remains much unfinished business in Afghanistan, the threat of a nuclear Iran, and changing conditions in Pakistan.
Despite the objections of anti-war groups and politicians, there is no reason to consider leaving Iraq -- or redeploying our troops, depending on how you want to characterize it -- until the September scheduled briefing by military officials on progress achieved by the surge. However, since one thing the armed services do is plan for various eventualities, there's no reason why they can't plan for change now, if one is needed. And they should do so.
With less than two months to work with, here are the military and Iraqi political scenarios we're likely to hear in September, based on recent events.
Military: We're defeating the insurgents where we meet them on the battlefield, with the help of our former Sunni opponents in some places. The problem has been that they tend to escape too often before our forces arrive at a given location, so we're too often only beating the leftovers. So while we're beating them in Baquba, they're bombing people in Kirkuk. Things are also progressing well in rural areas, not so smoothly in Baghdad itself. Overall, there is some progress, but not a lot.
Iraqi Political: A major reason for the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to become effective and pass agreements on fundamental issues, including how to split up oil revenues. The good news this week is that Shiites who've boycotted parliament have apparently agreed to return. The bad news is that's about the only good news. Prime Minister al-Maliki continues to be a weak leader who is unable to assert control over radical Shiites. Overall, progress is minuscule.
Based on the current political climate in Washington, D.C., a mixed-bag report like the scenario described above would be the worst thing that could happen, because there would be no clear signs of success. Republicans would argue to continue the surge because of steady military progress, while Democrats would contend that such progress isn't meaningful if the Iraqi government doesn't pull its weight. So we'd end up in the same old political brawl here at home without a lack of consensus.
If we end up with a pacified countryside and chaos in Baghdad, then we have to re-evaluate our reason for being in Iraq, and set aside nation-building in favor of pure self-interest on our part. Keeping a major military presence in the region is a major national security interest of the United States because of Iran's pot-stirring and our desire to keep Syria out of Lebanon.
The best way to maintain those interests will be to build three major military bases in Iraq, two along the lengthy border with Iran and one against Syria. And by "along the border," I mean by a foot or two. Build an airstrip at each one. Place thousands of troops at each one, and be ready to do what might become necessary in the future. A token force can be left in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
In a sense, it will say "to heck with you" to the Iraqis, but it will keep us from continually kicking a dead horse, if that's what their government turns out to be. And we'll still be around to handle any serious terrorist incursions. But it will also get us out from the sectarian violence and away from the roadside bombs. And, most importantly, it will maintain, or even increase, the pressure on the rogue governments of Iran and Syria, which is among the reasons why we're there in the first place.
