Iraq: Two views

Both conservative, on pro and one con.

Noted paleocon and longtime war critic, George Will Has an article called Togetherness In Baghdad where he outlines why Iraq is an abject failure. Key quote:

A surreal facet of the Iraq fiasco is the lag between when a fact becomes obvious and when the fiasco's architects acknowledge it.

On the other hand is Amir Taheri with a more optimistic take:


IRAQ: UNITING AGAINST THE JIHADIS BUT WORRIED THE AMERICANS WILL SPLIT

He cites the following reasons to be optimistic:

Recent events highlight the growing isolation of the jihadists and their Saddamite allies:

* A tribal alliance has joined together all Arab Sunni clans of western Iraq in a united front to "chase al Qaeda out of Iraq."

This was partly a response to a split inside al Qaeda's Iraq branch. Members of the terror group recently published an appeal to Osama bin Laden to dismiss Abu-Ayyub al-Masri, the group's " commander" in Iraq. Why? Al-Masri, an Egyptian terrorist, has tried to push the group's violence to new depths of perfidy by planting mines in primary schools and hospitals and organizing rackets against shopkeepers, both Shiite and Sunni. The statement calling for his dismissal calls him a "deviant" - a label that indicates the willingness of some al Qaeda members to liquidate him if he's not replaced.

* Iraq's National Assembly gave near-unanimous approval to a new plan for peace and reconciliation. Backed by all ethnic and religious communities through their political parties, the plan furthers the marginalization of the jihadists and Saddamites.

Under the plan, the different ethnic and religious groups would come to one another's help whenever needed in the battle against the insurgents. This would end a de facto situation in which Arab Sunni areas have been no-go areas for Shi'ite and Kurdish forces and vice-versa.

More, the plan envisages the creation of a unified information office to harmonize the sermons delivered at mosques, regardless of their affiliations. The idea is to use the mosque as a forum for a unified and democratic Iraq, rather than a hub of sectarian agitation.

* A third event is set to take place in Mecca next week at the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. This will bring together prominent Sunni and Shiite clerics from Iraq and eight other Muslim countries to discuss and approve a declaration demanding an end to sectarian feuds in Iraq. An initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the gathering reflects growing impatience with the jihadists throughout the Muslim world.

The proposed draft categorically states that bloodshed motivated by sectarian considerations is haram (forbidden) - and that its perpetrators are waging war on Islam as a whole. (Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Husseini Sistani wants the gathering to go further by labeling as haram any incitement to sectarian hatred.)

The Mecca gathering represents the first major effort by Sunnis and Shiites toward mutual recognition as acceptable versions of the same faith since 1947. It is strongly supported by the Al-Azhar seminary in Cairo, the Council of Ulema in Mecca and Medina, the Shi'ite seminaries of Najaf (Iraq) and Qom (Iran) and all five associations of Iraq's Sunni clerics.

These are good things but really, only the first one seems to be any real gain. I think the American people's patience is quickly drawing to a close. If the Democrats win in November look for rapid cutting and running redeployment consequences be damned. That is a recipe for disaster. We have to win in Iraq but not without forcing Iraqis to start shouldering the load more. We should stay but only if they show the will to take on the responsibility of running the show. Security is job one and unless or until they're willing to do that, we have to threaten them with leaving.

Leaving is the last thing we want to do and everyone knows it. However, it still has to be a club to beat them with. Either they stand up and secure the place or they're going to be very unhappy when we leave.