Iraq: from tragedy to farce

To prove they are not staythecoursers, this week the Administration announced a strategy to develop a timetable for developing a timetable for transition in Iraq.  The announcement, interestingly, was made by our Ambassador to Iraq and our leading general on the ground there, and not be anyone in Washington.  This is, of course, a few days after another general on the ground there said our military strategy in Iraq was no longer working. 

What happened next should convince any reasonable person that the Administration is no longer capable of managing American interests in Iraq. 

For the only chance we have to prevent Iraq from slipping into a bloody civil war or failed state is to advance a new and vigerous political and diplomatic effort to bring the battling parties to the table and help them find a better path than war.  This will require the American government to be working hand in glove with the democratically elected Iraqi government. 

A day after our representatives made their announcement in Iraq the Iraqi Prime Minister rejected our timetable to find a timetable.  If we can't even manage to get the Iraqi PM to agree to what was largely a pre-election publicity stunt with no real impact for what would happen in Iraq, how can we possibly believe we have the diplomatic chops to pull off a diplomatic solution to our troubles there? 

A lede Times editorial this am discusses all this. 

And what was Rumsfeld's response to a question about the obviously troubling developments in Iraq? "Back off."

In yesterday's Times, Peter Bergen laid out a possible military strategy for the moment when we've decided that a safe and secure Iraq is no longer an option.  It isn't pretty. 

Friends, we've got some tough choices coming in Iraq, and am not real sure what role this Administration is going to play in helping us make them.