Does anyone remember why we went to war in Iraq in the first place? Remember those WMDs? Those links to terrorism? All the imminent doom and gloom?

Does anyone recall the well defined definition of victory in Iraq? Those short-term; mid-term; and long-term goals? Does it matter that many of the short-term goals still haven't been achieved.

Then, on to the surge. If you listened to McCain and his choir, the surge has succeeded. Sure, it has succeeded if you only count the reduction in violence to 2005 levels as success (and you simultaneously overlook all other contributing factors).

Never mind that the surge, just like the war itself, had specific objectives. The reduction in violence was only one facet, designed to give the Iraqi's "breathing room" for political reconciliation.

By all accounts, the security gains in Iraq are seen as exceptionally fragile. The reason is because the conditions necessary to create a lasting peace have not been established.

Last month, the CRS reported, "Iraq’s current government, the result of a U.S.-supported election process designed
to produce democracy, is instead a sectarian government incapable of reconciliation." (Emphasis added).

As long as we continue to move the goal posts and claim that a mere reduction in violence is evidence of the success of the surge, then sure, the surge has succeeded. However, just like the war, that had very specific definitions of victory in the beginning, claiming success of the surge requires redefining what success means. Violence down to 2005 levels! Yippie! We won.

What happens next? Will Iraq be able to maintain this lull in violence without U.S. troop presence? If the answer is no, the surge has yet to achieve key objectives. Can Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds reconcile their differences? If no, the surge has yet to succeed. Has Iraq delivered economic services and provided services to all areas and communities? If no, we can just ignore these are vital indicators of the success of a particular strategy, right?

Let's move those goal posts. Declare "mission accomplished." It's surge-arrific and everything is going to be OK.

It's a very fair question and, unfortunately, I do not see a solution for "Iraq."

The moment the U.S. invaded, the notion of "Iraq" became abstract. It is just a geographic boundary present on a map. There is nothing that holds this amalgam together as a single, cohesive unit. (Don't take that as an endorsement of Saddam's Iraq, though.)

The Kurds have long sought independence and have enjoyed relative autonomy for the past a 17 or so years (due mainly to the so-called no-fly zones). The Shiite represent the largest ethnic group and are closely aligned to Iran. The Sunni, that enjoyed favor under Saddam Hussein's regime, do not wish to reliquinish control.

It really doesn't help, either, that the Anbar Awakening, which has played a role in the reduction of violence in Iraq, involved the arming of former Sunni Insurgents. Do you think they are going to give up their guns when the U.S. leaves?

I have long been an advocate of partitioning Iraq. It is an imperfect solution to an exceedingly complex series of problems. It doesn't come without its own drawbacks, too. Iran will gain greater regional power with its extended influence with the Shiite partiion (which Iran is already doing, mind you). Ethnic cleansing will continue for those Sunni and Shiite areas and vice versa. Kurds in neighboring Turkey, Iran, and Syria will likely push for Greater Kurdistan.

What's the alternative though? 100 years of U.S. presence in Iraq attempting to maintain the integrity of an arbitrary political boundary? More sectarian warfare?

I stand fast by the belief the U.S. should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. All of this was painfully predicitable. Short of a time machine that enables "do overs" that is a moot point, though. The solution, then, is to find a way to address all factions desires, try to mitigate the best we can against futher chaos, and get our troops and our money out of Iraq permanently.

So your solution is to find a solution.

Interesting.

I see you didn't read what I wrote.

I said I have long been an advocate of partitioning Iraq. I also said I recognize that it is not a perfect solution.

I don't know that people have claimed that Iraq is all fixed since the surge. Sensible people, though, see that the surge has allowed some progress and a reduction of violence to 2005 levels, as opposed to the continuous increase in violence that occurred before the surge. Thinking people understand that the surge was more than just sending more troops in, it encompassed tactics like paying and arming the Sunnis to fight AQ. Objective people see the difference between Mahdi's initial cease-fire, used to demonstrate that he alone held the key to peace or war in Iraq, and the second cease-fire, which he was forced in to when he attempted to fight back against surging American troops and an improved Iraqi Army.

In any case, nobody is supporting your sensible solution for Iraq. Obama isn't, McCain isn't, nor are the military leaders on the ground there. Personally, I'm with you. But, given that it's not going to happen, we need sensible, thoughtful, objective leadership on Iraq. Obama's claims that, though the presence of more American troops has helped Iraq, he still feels that the surge was the wrong course of action doesn't show him to have the three key qualities we need in this war.

It's a major sticking point. The largest field, the Kirkuk field, is actually in Kurdish areas (Kirkuk).

The other major fields are primarily in Shiite and Kurdish lands.

I read all of it-- more than once. I read with special care your final paragraph in which you state the following:

"The solution, then, is to find a way to address all factions desires...[etc.]"

I also read his response and partitioning was suggested. A central government, with Shiites in the majority, with perhaps 3 regional or provincial governments all with access to a fair share of the oil revenue, such as is being done in Canada where all provinces benefit from Alberta oil revenue but Alberta benefits more because they also get the industry jobs and income.

Have you suggested your own solution for Iraq. Have not read it if you have.

Spruce is on the money with that suggestion!

Leo Harold

Leo Harold:

I also read his response and partitioning was suggested. A central government, with Shiites in the majority, with perhaps 3 regional or provincial governments all with access to a fair share of the oil revenue, such as is being done in Canada where all provinces benefit from Alberta oil revenue but Alberta benefits more because they also get the industry jobs and income.

Have you suggested your own solution for Iraq. Have not read it if you have.

Spruce is on the money with that suggestion!

Leo Harold

Maybe the lid on violence U.S. troops provide will give that sort of Iraq time to emerge.

Maybe the U.S. imposing that Iraq and withdrawing its troops will allow a subsequent Shiite dominaton of oil and civil war ... who knows?

It is amazing that sensible people are able to time travel to period before the surge to pay former Sunni Insurgents to be part of the forthcoming surge. What an amazing strategy. Now if we could just time travel to the beginning of the war and scratch the whole invasion.

Obama correctly recognizes that the Sunni Awakening and the original Mahdi Army cease fire were completely indpendent of the surge. The Sunni Awakening began in September 2006. The surge wasn't even announced until January 10, 2007. Those that are now claiming that arming the former insurgents was part of the surge are completely re-writing history.

Unlike McCain, that is falsely claiming the surge has succeeded, Obama has acknowledged the decline in violence, while correctly attributing it to several interacting causes.

I prefer a politician that gives a sober assessment of the situation rather than one that repeatedly lies about the situation. McCain has said the surge has succeeded (past tense) and once claimed he was able to walk in a Baghdad market without protection. He has even falsely claimed that we have succeeded militarily in Iraq.

McCain has also shown a fundamental lack of understanding about the conflict. He has repeated conflated Shiite militias with al Qaeda; he has reinvented the timetable of the surge; he called Iraq the first major conflict after 9-11; he discussed the situation along the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border; and has downplayed the Taliban/al Qaeda resurgence in Afghanistan.

He was wrong about the war from the start and his only achievement is supporting a strategy that has helped contribute to a reduction of violence in the country (which IS a good thing, mind you). He repeatedly talks about "victory," though he hasn't defined it beyond defeating the insurgency that didn't exist before the war started.

As much as I would love to pat John McCain on the back for supporting a policy that has helped reduce violence to 2005 levels, I will go ahead and support the candidate that recognized that this war could be a debacle from the start.

You think that the surge started on the day it was anounced to the public, and there was no activity before that. Fair enough, I don't really see what difference it makes. There's no question that the U. S. made a policy of arming and funding Sunnis against AQ, and that helped contribute to a decline in violence. There's no question, also, that the surge further helped reduce violence. There's no question that the surge led to an important tactical defeat of Mahdi. If you want to draw hard lines between these events, that's fine -- but please define the percentage change that can be attributed to each. If the surge is only 20% responsible, then why is Obama against it, still? Why is he willing to give up any amount of the progress that's been made? Every step that brings even marginally more peace to Iraq is a step closer we are to getting out of there -- why doesn't Obama see that?

Personally, I don't buy that Obama would have voted against the war had he been in office. Obviously it's the politically expedient thing to say, now, but there's no way of knowing. Obama has said that he didn't know how he would have voted in 2002. He's said that he wasn't privy to Senate intelligence reports of the time. He's said, "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." He said in 2004 that there was little difference between him and Bush on whether we should "pull out now". He's also said, at various times, that he would have voted "no". He defended Kerry, Edwards and Clinton on their votes to authorize the use of force in Iraq. In other words, you're more sure than Obama is (and you're more consistent on the matter) that he would have voted against the war.

When you read a book do you just read the last page over and over and decide that it holds the complete summation of the preceding chapters?

The last paragraph is in the context of the entire post, which clearly articulates that my not-so-perfect solution among a host of not-so-perfect solutions is partition.