Iraq: light at the end of the tunnel?

The last two entries (here and here) presented different views on Iraq’s future. Michael Scheuer said we have lost in Iraq, and in the process we gave al-Qaeda its second major victory over a superpower (defeating the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan was the first). For good measure, Scheuer adds we are going to lose Afghanistan as well.

Fouad Ajami, writing before Moqtada al-Sadr’s recent decision to pull his folks out of Iraq’s cabinet—a seemingly positive development—finds hope in al-Maliki’s independent effort to create a unified coalition, which would be a new milestone for Arab world democracy. Scheuer and Ajami share the view that Sunni dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Egypt represent the past. Scheuer believes al-Qaeda will overthrow them, while Ajami feels a Shiite-led Iraq can inspire more peaceful democratic reforms elsewhere in the Middle East.

Al-Maliki needs a victory in Iraq. Securing Baghdad would be such a victory, even if violence temporarily increases in some other parts of Iraq. If Iraq is a civil war, al-Maliki needs at least his Vicksburg, if not his Atlanta. I think the U.S. can, as we have, change generals. But given the short time frame set by American domestic politics, we can’t be changing the prime minister from one chosen by a democratic process to one Americans like more. In Vietnam, we maybe made a big mistake to take Diem out. In Iraq, we are, Enshallah, stuck with al-Maliki.