Keep in mind, that when Kaplan says, “to redeem something from this dreadful war,” what he’s referring to is likely to be a non-democracy in which one of Iraq’s ethnic groups has vanquished and purged its rival(s) through civil war and some sort of ethnic cleansing, and instituted an authoritarian state where most of the country’s fortunes are claimed by the winning ethnic group. In other words, it may not be all that different from Saddam’s regime, except that the country’s infrastructure will be even more depleted, and its overall condition will be even more desperate after so many travails. Too bad Donald Rumsfeld is no longer Secretary of Defense; it would have made for wonderful symmetry to have a photo op of him shaking hands with the next Saddam, to match the one of him back in the ‘80s shaking hands with the first Saddam.

The situation at present seems analogous to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, where ethnic violence is the ongoing chain reaction and the U.S. troops are the graphite control rods. We can either leave the control rods in place forever (heck, we can afford $100 billion and 1,000 soldiers killed per year indefinitely, can’t we?), or pull them out and let the whole goddam thing melt down. These seem to be our choices, and our fondest hope is that the situation might eventually get back to the way it was under Saddam. Thanks again so much, Mr. Bush.

Exactly so! Things weren't so bad for us under Saddam were they? Not so good for Iraqis but, hey, that's their problem, right? I mean there wouldn't be any American soldiers, contractors, or devious types dying or being crippled. The Oil would be on the market and flowing to some extent (unlike now.) We might even have defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and caught OBL. Ya think?

um 1 thing we could always go for the 3 state soultion. the ottoman empire was cut up aritarily wasnt it so why not fix the borders to thier pre WWI places . and at the rate its going this aint Chernobyl this is like a entire thermonuclear arsenal in a little wooden hut with a nuclear strike just over the horizon . imagine what would happen if the entire region's oil supply was ignited spontanously. there would be no middle east just a big hole in the earth (or no earth at all). thank god saddam didnt have a nuclear warhead
.

that other ongoing middle east conflict . . . israel and palestine. what have 60 years of "control rods" (sexy, B&D sounding) done for us there?

in general, wars continue until there is a victor, and are fueled by available weapons. (the buildup of weapons is the most reliable predictor of who will start the next war, according to many reliable university studies)

how about we withdraw to iraq's borders (and airfields/ports) and secure them against futher intrustion. this wil cut off the "fuel" for this conflict. eventually one side or the other in the conflict will do an assessment and realize it cannot win, and come to the bargaining table.

this is how "peace" was achieved in every conflict that came to an end . . . one side gave up, and negotiated a deal which simply recognized the reality of what was happening on the battlefield.

arming one side in iraq, then the other, guarantees there can be no peace.

Partition along the Yugoslav model is the likely future for Iraq. The Kurds have the best army in Iraq and will not give up their hard won independence. The Arabs will split along the Shi'ite - Sunni divide with Shi'itestan and Kurdistan getting the oil and the Sunnis getting sand. Ethnic cleansing will continue in the mixed areas.