I do not see either the Mahdi Army, Dawa, or SCIRI funneling weapons to al Qaeda. Sadr more thuggish than Hakim, but if anything the hardliners are more opposed to the Qaedists than the “moderates.”

al Qaeda's grand strategy appears to be to force the United States to abandon secular governments, which would in turn allow [Sunni] Islamic revolutions throughout the Arab middle east. However, American “withdrawal” in Iraq means infinitely more dangerous Shia Iranian encroachment.

Embracing Monotheism & Jihad as “al Qaeda in Iraq” was a great mistake on bin Laden and al Zawahiri's part. It was the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Because al Qaeda's screw-ups have been greater than ours, we are on the verge of an overwhelming victory. I wonder if all wars are determined this way…

1. I'm not particularly worried about Mahdi & Co supporting Al Qaeda. I am worried by the notion of them gaining enough power to expand their current religious-cleansing activities to the whole country. An unpleasant prospect in it's own right, and one that could lead to wider Sunni-Shiite conflict.

2. If Al Qaeda's goal is explicitly the establishment of a Sunni Caliphate in Iraq, then Iranian involvement would be unwelcome. But what if wider Sunni-Shiite conflict is their goal? They wouldn't get Iraq (at least, not right away), but several other Sunni countries would be weakened and easier to take over.
Granted, I'm assuming here that they're far enough underground to leave Iraq easily once the bloodbath starts, or that their allies in the other Gulf states could do without them if necessary. If they're not, then your assessment is right; Iraq is their Vietnam, if not their Waterloo.

3. This is more speculative than the other points; I haven't seen anyone else talk about this, so I don't know if my impressions are accurate. As I recall, much of Iran's oil is in a border province occupied mainly by Shiite Arabs; if they lost that province, they would lose much of their economy. It's not hard to imagine their being worried that a Shiite Arab-dominated Iraq could threaten their control of the province. If they thought they could keep Iraq stirred up enough to keep the Arabs weak, but not enough to trigger large refugee flows or a wider war, the temptation would be to do so.

In summary, I think Mr Zakaria's right in thinking that regional deal cutting could be valuable to an Iraq peace settlement. Even if that isn't the case, it may be necessary to preventing a wider war. So, did I miss anything?

As far as this being Al Qaeda's Vietnam, that depends on what their goals in Iraq are besides fighting us.

First, we must ask: why is this war being fought? For what end? For what goal?

To me, there are two basic protagonists in this struggle.

The Iraqi People
The American Nation

At the risk of “forgetting Poland” [1], these are the “good guys.” Likewise, there are two basic antagonists of this struggle

al Baath
al Qaeda

Numerous other thugs and nogoodnicks exist, but al Qaeda is our enemy in this war against terrorism, and al Baath is the organization which fought us for a decade.

Therefore, it seems to be that a sane foreign policy would seek to benefit the Iraqi People and the American Nation as much as possible while injuring al Baath and al Qaeda as much as possible. Additionally, most of America's interests can be gained by securing the Iraqi people and destroying al Baath and al Qaeda.

Why, then, do we not let the Iraqi people, through their government, destroy al Baath and al Qaeda?

The answer that puts the Administration in the most generous light is: we are more interested in frustrated Iran's interests (and particularly their need to secure Iraq and defeat the Baath) than we are in pursuing our own. The answer that the news presents, that the Bush administration is merely hopelessly lost and trying to cobble together a politically-correct peace, may also be true. Another possible answer: that we are worried about collateral damage among our enemies but not our friends, would indicate a crippling moral weakness.

Either way, the failure to secure Iraq and defeat al-Baath and al-Qaeda is deeply disturbing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_forgot_Poland

Thank you for your comment.

Before the Iraq War, I criticized those who wanted “peace” by saying there was no peace. Saddam Hussein was at war with his own people. Not invading would have minimized our involvement, but it would not have helped contain the Sunni-Shia conflict.

The same is true now. An “expanded Sunni-Shia” conflict in the Gulf area essentially means the internationalization of Saudi Arabia's brutal oppression of the Arab Shia. [1] I don't see this as a bad thing.

Sunni Arab regimes that do not have significant Shia minorities already have a convenient scape-goat for their troubles: Israel. If they wish to start including the Shia as well as the Jews, it's little more than insult added to injury. Syria is a Sunni Arab state ruled by a small sect of Shia Islam largely opposed by the Muslim Brothers. As the Brothers do well in fair elections, helping them and hurting the Baathists is a good thing. [2]

There was hope among some, not least the Bush Administration, that the Pan-Arabism of Iraqi Shia would outweigh their Pan-Shiism. That's why we pushed Shia leaders who were hostile to Iran, such as Iyad Allawi , once we were in a position to betray those who did the hard work (Chalabi, etc.). Sadly for Bush et al., it appears that the racism of the past was a passing phenomena.

Zakaria's suggestion manages to roll-back the effects of the Iraq War as much as feasible, replacing the rule of people with the rule of despots. If honestly implemented, it would be a disaster.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/03/03/religious_freedom_in_east_arabia_-_or_-_the_saudis_are_jerks.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/08/24/a-new-middle-east-part-iv-islam-is-the-answer.html

“What's the difference, in practice, between an Iraq ruled by homicidal Sunnis and an Iraq ruled by homicidal Shiites? The way I see it, the latter option isn't really going to be any better than the former (aka, the Baathists).”

This is the sort of moral relativism that I oppose. There is a moral difference between aggression and self-defense. There is a moral difference between terrorizing a population in order to maintain power over it and attempting to end that terror. That Qaedists and Baathists hide among a willing population, and so bring death to that population, is a moral charge against them — not the Iraqi (Shia and Kurdish) people.

“You're talking about reducing the pressure on Israel by getting the Sunnis busy on a second front. “

I don't think so — I'm going after something larger than that: a new middle east.

“What's to keep Iran- who's already making threats against Israel- from ramping up it's genocidal promises to keep that from happening?”

Self-interest. Iranians, at the risk of making a generalization, are a nationalistic and proud people. The work with the Christian Armenians because it improves their stance agains the Muslim Azerbaijanis, they've worked with Israel in the past (definitely during Iran-Contra, probably during the attack on Iraq's nuclear plant) to contain Arabs. The Iranians are much easier to handle than Saddam, Qaeda, etc.

“We leave Iraq, they abandon their Shiite clients to reduce frictions while ramping up the diplomatic and PR efforts to get the Sunni countries into their orbit.”

This is the very first time I've heard this idea.

“How are you going to have that globalist Kurdistan without cutting a deal between them and Turkey? Maybe also between Kurdistan and Syria and/or Iran?”

Syria doesn't matter — Damascus is a tin-pot dictatorship unable to hold on to Lebanon.

Iran matters a lot, but has a long and positive working relationship with the Kurds.

Turkey clearly is a factor, but Europe has been very effective at keeping Ankara in line.

Actually, I'm not being morally relativistic. I've no problems with people defending themselves. Problem is, what happens when the Shiites defending themselves are joined by Shiites getting payback for Saddam-era atrocities, Shiites borrowing from Saddam's handbook to boost their own power, and criminals of who-knows-what-tribe hiding their actions under the cover of war? Which group will be in charge as the Shiites consolidate their hold on Iraq? If it's the moderates and self-defenders (and I have heard the new head of the Iraqi police is trying to clean things up), great. If it's one of the other groups, THEN there's a problem.

As for the question of Sunni civilians willingly hiding and assisting Al Qaeda and Baath fighters, how many of them are that willing? If given a choice between a) sheltering them and risking retaliation by others, and b) refusing them and getting killed outright, many people would take a) hoping that they'll luck out. As for the willing collaborators, how many of them are doing it out of aggression or hatred, and how many because they fear aggression and hatred by the Shiites?

Overall, I know war is hell on combatants and civilians alike, I just don't want to get too comfortable with it. Nor do I want to get locked into a side A good/side B bad mentality; with Saddam in irons and his regime scattered to the winds, there's plenty of good and bad to go around to ALL parties involved. That's a lot of where I'm coming from.

Need to get going, part II of my reply tomorrow.

So the War in Europe became problematic when countries defending their own lives were joined by countries concerned about the global balance of power, countries that just didn't like the Germans, etc?

Of course not — a war's justification does not depend on the benefits one receives if one ends.

“Which group will be in charge as the Shiites consolidate their hold on Iraq? If it's the moderates and self-defenders (and I have heard the new head of the Iraqi police is trying to clean things up), great. If it's one of the other groups, THEN there's a problem.”

You may be confusing “moderates” and “self-defenders.” Bush's policy in Iraq has discouraged moderate forces from engaging in self-defense. The reason Sadr's powerful and not just a wing of Dawa or SCIRI is that the moderate parties “responsibly” put off self-defense in the face of American discouragement.

The sooner we actively encourage self-defnese, the more powerful the moderates can have.

“As for the question of Sunni civilians willingly hiding and assisting Al Qaeda and Baath fighters, how many of them are that willing?”

Probably not a higher percentage than “that willing” citizens of Dresden, “that willing” citizens of Atlanta, etc.

“If given a choice between a) sheltering them and risking retaliation by others, and b) refusing them and getting killed outright, many people would take a) hoping that they'll luck out. As for the willing collaborators, how many of them are doing it out of aggression or hatred, and how many because they fear aggression and hatred by the Shiites?”

By this logic we should immediately concede to any conscription army, or else we risk injuring those who would rather be home.

“Overall, I know war is hell on combatants and civilians alike, I just don't want to get too comfortable with it. Nor do I want to get locked into a side A good/side B bad mentality; with Saddam in irons and his regime scattered to the winds, there's plenty of good and bad to go around to ALL parties involved. That's a lot of where I'm coming from.”

To me al Qaeda definitely implies bad, and attempting to build a democracy definitely implies good.

I'm looking forward to Part II!