Tom Friedman on "The Endgame In Iraq"

Now that the Times has moved it's Op-Ed columnists to a new web site that is accessible only to paid subscribers, I'm not sure that links to their articles will work. But, if they do, Tom Friedman's piece today on "The Endgame In Iraq" bears reading.

Friedman's thesis is that the next few months will "tell the tale" on whether future efforts to stabilize Iraq are worth the effort and lives that will be required. As Iraqis go to the polls to vote first on a constitution and next for a new government (assuming the constitution passes), Friedman thinks that we will be able to see just what role that the minority Sunnis intend to play. If they decide to "play nice," then Iraq will be on the road to stability; if they do not, then there is no hope.

The role that the Sunnis play in the political process is unquestionably one of the key uncertainties. But it is not the only one by any means. And, even that one is hardly so simple as to make it reasonable to expect we will have an answer to it anytime soon. In short, I think that Friedman's analysis is simplistic in describing the hurdles Iraq faces and naive in suggesting that the one hurdle he does describe will resolve itself one way or the other in the next few months.

But, aside from that, the startling part of Friedman's piece comes at the end, when he suggests the courses of action the United States should pursue:

Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time. We should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind. We must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children.

Wow.

Friedman is obviously frustrated, as we all are, by the seeming mindlessness of the Sunni "insurgency," and perhaps this frustration has led him to be a bit intemperate in his proposed solutions. But, to me, the suggestion that we should ever -- to say nothing of soon -- "arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind" sounds chillingly like a suggestion that genocide is the answer to the political violence and instability that currently plagues the country.

The danger we face in Iraq is that, if we leave, and even if we do nothing to promote it, the country could well descend into exactly the maelstrom of sectarian violence that Friedman seems willing to contemplate. If that occurs, the very best we could hope for would be the emergence of a secular autocrat not unlike the regime we went in to eliminate. As bad as that outcome would be, the alternatives are even worse: the rise of a Taliban-like regime that would pose an enormous threat to American security, to the fledgling Afghan Republic and, indeed, to the entire Middle East, or worse yet, a descent into barbarism comparable to that in Rwanda, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia.

As bad as "staying the course" is, the possible alternatives seem much, much worse. Inevitably, I think, we have to stay there until stability (not democracy) is assured. This might take a decade or more. And, it will costs thousands more Americans their lives. But, in the end, I don't see what choice we have. We have created a toxic stew of a mess, and, while it is sorely tempting to simply wash our hands of it, our own security, to say nothing of our moral responsibility, depends on seeing to it that the mess gets cleaned up.