This involves getting Sunni Arab leaders to tame the terrorists in their midst, and become law-abiding Iraqis. Few Kurds or Shia Arabs feel they can trust the Sunni Arabs, but if they want to keep American troops in the country (which keeps the Iraqi casualty rate down, and unfriendly neighbors out), they have to go along with the current "surge" campaign. This has resulted in two interesting developments. First, many more Sunni Arab leaders are switching sides, coming over to the government, and joining the fight against the Sunni Arab terrorists groups (a mélange of nationalist and religious fanatic organizations, plus al Qaeda and other foreign factions. ) Sunni Arab militias are not much more effective against the terrorists (who are certainly more fanatical, a major military advantage in the Arab world), than the Iraqi security forces. But these new alliances have led to more information about where the terrorists hang out, and this has resulted in the greater use of American smart bombs.
What is their way?
The Iraqi solution is the traditional one; punish the entire Sunni Arab community. Since the Kurds and Shia now have far more men under arms than do the Sunni Arabs, this approach would result in a series of battles against Sunni Arab neighborhoods (in large cities) and towns (out in the countryside). These areas would be cut off from the outside world. Food, water and electricity would cut off as well. Surrender or die. Those who surrendered would be disarmed, taken to a border area, and forced out of the country. In some areas, there might be massacres as well. It's an Iraqi tradition that's hard to shake.
I know it is culturally insensitive of us to ignore local traditions, but if we want the maximum effect of this war by creating a democracy that undermines both autocrats and jihadis in the Moslem Arab world, we have to fight our way. We can always get the minimalist victory of a pro-American autocracy led by Shias and Kurds that wipes out the Sunni Arabs as a community.
Unfortunately, Iranian and Saudi fears and ambitions might make it impossible to keep such a development localized. The violence could expand to draw in Iraq'a neighbors. And this is a development considered likely even by a number of opponents of the war in Iraq:
If the Realists, neighboring Arab regimes, our intelligence community and some of the most knowledgeable reporters all say such a course could be disastrous, on what basis are the withdrawal advocates taking their position?
The American people are understandably frustrated with Iraq. But this does not mean they will be satisfied with politicians who support a path that could make matters much worse.
I know it seems like the Democratic Party leadership has abandoned the Pottery Barn Rule, but trying to fashion a retreat from Iraq on the unrealistic theory that all will be fine if we just get out of the way is folly.
