604

If you think breaking Iraq up into three separate regions — Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd — is the best chance for the US to exit gracefully from the Iraq quagmire, Tom Hayden begs to differ:

The partition discussion downplays the fact that it is a menu for continued US war against the Iraq insurgency...As in Northern Ireland, the occupiers are saying they cannot leave because the natives will kill each other, the perfect formula for permanent American deaths.

The appeal of [partitionist Peter] Galbraith's viewpoint is that it avoids the "cut and run" label while still calling for US troop withdrawals and redeployment to Kurdistan — "over the hill", but able in league with the Kurdish peshmerga to re-invade Anbar province with greater troop numbers and force. A retreat but also a repositioning for the US in a pro-Western Kurdistan.

...

If the withdrawal of American troops is contingent on Iraqis accepting partition, this would give new oxygen to the dying American presence. The current Congressional debate would shift away from bringing the troops home and turn toward the imperial game of how to arrange the ethnic chess board.

So if "cutting and running" is unpalatable, and if partition is just an excuse for an open-ended American presence which "means American troops will be killed and wounded for purposes that are less and less understood by their families, friends and the American people," what is the solution? I've proposed one from the beginning, which Hayden but few others seem to agree with:

The best strategy is for the US to declare a plan to withdraw and simultaneously transfer authorization for security and economic reconstruction to the United Nations.

Got a better suggestion?