New at Reason

David Weigel | October 12, 2006

Michael Young feels the ground shift beneath him as he checks in on a new plan to "deal with" Iraq.

Comments

|10.12.06 @ 1:07PM|#

"Finally, asking Iran and Syria to guarantee this process means asking the two states most responsible for destabilizing Iraq since 2003 to oversee its stabilization."

I think the US wins that prize. Iran could reap all sorts of havoc in the south of Iraq if it wanted to. They could effectively cut off America's supply lines from Kuwait via the Mehdi Army or some other proxy force without a lot of trouble. If anything Iran is responsible for keeping the south relatively quiet.

|10.12.06 @ 1:48PM|#

Michael Young certainly saves up his commitment to Iraqi self-determination for special occasions.

He only takes it out when people who aren't neocons start making plans for Iraq. I didn't notice any consideration for whether the Iraqis should be involved in deciding if the American occupation of their country should end.

|10.12.06 @ 7:03PM|#

yoyo: he is susceptible to criticism, however. He posted an earlier version of this argument in Hit and Run a few days ago, stating baldly that Syria and Iran were the states most responsible for Iraq's destabilization. He has now qualified this with "since 2003." He's still quite wrong, of course, but at least he is now aware there were something called "sanctions" applied to the Iraqis for over ten years.

|10.13.06 @ 1:50AM|#

All of which sounds happy and fine, except for one little thing.

Pity the Iraqis if they are once again secondary in deciding their own fate.

The Iraqis aren't capable of doing anything to control their own fate at this point even when they're handed the opportunity.

The blame game doesn't change it. That's the root of the problem, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. That's the thing we wish everyone had understood before hand.