Washington has made serious mistakes in Iraq, and they may lead to civil war. Dividing Iraq, however, is virtually certain to make things worse. It would convey the message that America has been defeated and abandoned a nation and a people. Even if one could overlook the fact the United States effectively broke Iraq and has a responsibility to its 28 million people, it is impossible to deny that leaving behind a power vacuum in an already dangerous region is hardly a viable strategy.
Though I wish Cordesman would take Hanson's counsel, I'll not comment on his complaints about our policy. The important thing is that dividing Iraq now would mean defeat.
I guess when we are winning and you can't stand that fact, the only thing to do is advocate the creation of somebody to whom you can surrender.
The enemy in Iraq can't cobble together a company-sized force to launch an attack or call any territory their own, so forcing Iraq into the Vietnam template is rather difficult. Even aside from the whole 'sand' thing.
But by urging the creation of a country in the Sunni portion of Iraq that the Baathists would control, voila! An entity that can accept our surrender and snatch an American defeat from the jaws of victory is created! Ah, the fruits of big-brained, nuanced thinking!
We cannot allow the Iraqi Baathists to run their own thug state. Even a shrunken Sunni Triangle-based state. Period. That's why we invaded Iraq, remember? Otherwise this is just a replay of Desert Storm where our only goal was to reduce the territory that Saddam controlled.
As the saying might go: When you start to take Baghdad--take Baghdad. And when you take it--keep it.
