Blogged

Paging Harry Levins

If the Post-Dispatch’s resident military matters writer is scanning the web, I hope he notes and comments on this take on Iraq by a group of grunts - two staff sergeants, three sergeants, and an Army specialist - in a NY Times oped. While there’s much in the article that should give everyone pause back here in the States, the assessment of the political situation is key:

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

Not that this is a surprise, but it’s still depressing: there is more clarity and realism in this political snapshot of Iraq than we have heard, ever, from the Commander in Chief. Or any presidential candidate, Democratic or Republican. Or anyone in Congress. The soldiers here offer no easy solutions: just a realistic view of where we are now, the better to proceed without illusions. If the larger news media retains an ounce of responsibility, this oped will get at least as much tub-thumping attention as did the questionable O’Hanlon/Pollack piece.

Not bloody likely, of course.

Addendum: Like I said: not bloody likely.

(HT Kevin Drum.)

Similar posts:
“Incremental news”
At the Post-Dispatch, Drudge equals social networking
New look for STLtoday.com
The Lumiere Place-Dispatch
Roid rage

© 2007 Philip Barron.  Log in  Monitored by SiteUptime