On 11 Jul 2007, in an essay titled "In or Out", NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman described the inevitable consequences of a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Friedman commented:

"Getting out...means more ethnic, religious and tribal killings all across Iraq. It will be one of the most morally ugly scenes you can imagine - no less than Darfur. You will see U.S. troops withdrawing and Iraqi civilians and soldiers who have supported us clinging to our tanks for protection as we rumble out the door."

Neither the President nor Congress has the guts to watch this happen. Nor did they have the guts to commit the amount of troops needed to effectively occupy the country during the aftermath of the invasion (appropriate estimates were from 350,000-500,000). And devoting more troops to see the current surge through is political suicide. Whether we stay in Iraq or get out, massive killings of Iraqi civilians will continue, and once we leave, a failed state similar to Lebanon during the 1980s will emerge. It will take about a decade's worth of violence for the religious factions to get all the killing out of their systems, until normal life can resume. In this story there is only one group with nothing to lose: the Bush Administration.

In a story on 15 July 2007 by the AP, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that American forces were no longer needed and that they are welcome to return to the United States. Al-Maliki is in the unenviable position of being the leader of a country newly freed from autocratic oppression, only to now be run completely at the whim of an occupying nation. The "timetable plan" for American withdrawal is based entirely on the American election cycle, and is in no way oriented on the Iraqi people. Al-Maliki might have reasoned that anarchy under his own self rule is preferential to order imposed from the outside. However, he doesn't have order imposed from the outside as an option to choose from.

Airborne patrols between Baghdad and Fallujah are as revealing as they are terrifying. Three months ago, any enemy presence would be hidden as we flew over, giving the impression of peaceful towns. But when infantry patrols walked through these villages, they would come under attack- but the attackers would disappear as soon as the helicopter gunships returned.

Today, the situation is different, with local tribal leaders encouraging their youth to join the provisional Iraqi Police (essentially an armed neighborhood watch) in order to protect the tribe and the village. Last month the LA Times profiled this phenomenon in Ramadi, hailing it as a great success for the Marines. The villagers have decided that in choosing to side between the insurgency and the Americans, the Americans will always win, and they will pay a heavier price supporting the insurgency than the Americans. The tribal leaders have decided that they must protect the members of the tribe before all outsiders. What was predicted to be a consequence of American inaction after the war, is now being praised as the way forward in the settlement of Iraq: the tribal and religious factionalizing of the Iraqi people.

In Nov 2008, I foresee a winning candidate who will execute an immediate draw-down in American troops, from the current 150,000 to less than 15,000- occasionally augmented. The Iraqi forces will desperately struggle to fill the void, fail miserably, and then devolve into tribal sects bent on murdering each other. The American public, finally having it both ways, will turn their attentions to other subjects, returning America to an isolationist agenda. The Iraqi people will be left holding the bill.

Further Reading: AP (on CNN) LA Times Tom Friedman NYT