Political reconciliation

8/24/07 8:58AM EST

Here's a question that goes out to basically everybody--from liberals who think that the United States can't possibly create political reconciliation in Iraq to conservatives who think Maliki (and Iran and Democrats) are standing in the way. Is political reconciliation really enough? Or more specifically, Is political reconciliation conceivable in any long-term sense with, say, one-half--or even one-third--the level of violence plaguing Iraq this summer? I ask because I think a bit of rhetorical laziness has gripped basically everybody--including war critics--and it's slowly allowing the idea that the surge is a huge success to become the conventional wisdom. Either that or it's just that I think the situation there is even more hopeless than most of my anti-war fellow travelers do.

Comments

"The surge is working" is a placeholder for "nothing is working".

Please add this to the official list of less-bad-than-current-policy:

Iraq needs a secular strongman, with as much or more oomph as Saddam Hussein.

Let's not forget that governments are supposed to have a monopoly of force within a country.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on August 24, 2007 10:13 AM

I worked for two years as Political Officer in the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia. A lot of reporters came through, some terrific like David Ignatius, some opinionated like Charles Krauthammer. Dionne never dropped by. Hoagland was always a serial raver.

Hoagland still fits into a third category, a nasty drunk who rarely reported on anything having to do with what was going on in-country---the Ambassador colorfully said Hoagland alternated between being a fool and a liar, all laced with alcohol. And the Ambassador was a politically appointed Democrat!

Posted by: daveinboca on August 24, 2007 02:59 PM

Huh!

Posted by: Brian on August 24, 2007 06:12 PM