The surge will have allowed us to avoid the Last Chopper From Baghdad. The wall building in the city simply validated the sectarian ethnic cleansing that had been going on there. The Sunnis have allied with the US because they finally did the math, realized that they were a minority at the mercy of the Shiites, and needed an protector. Bribery didn't hurt either. As Kaplan notes, the government elected by the Shiite majority is friendly to Iran and wants to disarm the Sunni private militias and put the Sunnis at the mercy of the Shiites.

What this will give us long term is a divided Iraq too weak to threaten its neighbors, unwilling to serve as a US military platform, and where a continuing US military presence is needed to serve as the honest broker between Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. Not defeat, but not exactly what we set out to accomplish. But then, most wars end like that.

Sounds about right from here--anyone who thinks the Sunnis in Iraq were acting out of anything other than purely cynical self-interest has to be exceptionally delusional. We need a new (or perhaps "old") way of thinking about that situation. The fact of the matter is that partition, of at least the relatively friendly and reliable Kurdish lands, is in our own interest. Who cares if Turkey is offended? The same supposedly "ally" that denied us access to airspace and ports? The "ally" that continually threatens to send its army into Iraq in order to boil the pot over? I say screw Turkey. The other states in the region with Kurdish populations (Syria and Iran) are hardly friendly, either, so who cares what they think on the subject? At the end of the day, an independent Kurdistan would represent our best chance at a modestly democratic and friendly state in the region, AND would allow us numerous opportunities to introduce huge mischief into these rogue states by proxy, perhaps giving them another factor to consider before making trouble of their own.

As to the rump remainder of Iraq, I know this will sound horrible (or at least like that gargoyle Kissinger), but the divisions there are an opportunity if looked at through a certain lens. So Iran is backing the Shia majority. Does anyone think that the Saudis (the true villians of the Islamic world, the source of Wahhabism and the bankrollers of rancid idealogues and brigands worldwide) would sit idly by and let their kin be killed off like so many nutria? Let the Saudis and the Iranians have their playground--let them break one another fighting a senseless, interminable campaign for the next generation or so. Their true nature (their avarice, their hatred of liberty and contempt for modernity) will be exposed for all the world to see, and they will be torn down as any sort of examples for the remainder of the developing world. They will also exhaust their treasuries and most capable people in a hopeless and unwinnable fiasco. Let Iran and the house of al Saud have the remainder of Iraq (sans Kurdistan). Let them choke on it.

Dream,

I want some of what you are smoking, please.

You realize that you are advocating the same ill thought out, ill advised unilateral stupidity that got us into this mess in the first place, right? Gotta love the American sense of 'Cowboy Righteousness'.

And lemme guess, you have never served either and have no intention to, right? That seems about right, for those who have such 'Yippee Ki Yay!' opinions.

Also, something you probably didnt learn in junior High, HS or college aparently, but Turkey is a NATO member nation and enjoys a very important military, politcal and economic relationship with the US. I dont recall anywhere in the NATO charter that gives member states the right (or even inclination) to say 'screw you' to anyone, much less a member of the alliance.

Have a great day!

AND would allow us numerous opportunities to introduce huge mischief into these rogue states by proxy

Sometimes I wonder if the House of Saud hasn't used the US to introduce huge mischief into Iraq by proxy.

Dreamweapon:

As to the rump remainder of Iraq, I know this will sound horrible (or at least like that gargoyle Kissinger), but the divisions there are an opportunity if looked at through a certain lens. So Iran is backing the Shia majority. Does anyone think that the Saudis (the true villians of the Islamic world, the source of Wahhabism and the bankrollers of rancid idealogues and brigands worldwide) would sit idly by and let their kin be killed off like so many nutria? Let the Saudis and the Iranians have their playground--let them break one another fighting a senseless, interminable campaign for the next generation or so. Their true nature (their avarice, their hatred of liberty and contempt for modernity) will be exposed for all the world to see, and they will be torn down as any sort of examples for the remainder of the developing world. They will also exhaust their treasuries and most capable people in a hopeless and unwinnable fiasco. Let Iran and the house of al Saud have the remainder of Iraq (sans Kurdistan). Let them choke on it.

If the Saudis and Iranians a) were armed with bows and spears and b) didn't sit astride most of the world's oil supply, then a Sunni - Shia jihad over the carcass of Iraq could be viewed with equanimity. Neither, however, is true.

Twenty-five years ago the superficial realists thought that it would be fine for Iraq and Iran to fight each other to exhaustion. Look how well that turned out.

Jack,

Facts and sound reasoning are anathema to large segments of the population.

Have a great day!

It isn't much of a victory until the troops come home. Until then, our commitments in the Middle East will prevent us from reacting to emerging crises, such as the recent one in Georgia. (Could that also happen in the Ukraine? I think it definitely could.) We don't really have an army unless we have one that can be deployed. Until then, people like Vladimir Putin can simply ignore the empty blustering from the White House.