Where Do We Go From Here?

It is almost certainly premature, given that Bush still has not crawled through the gates of his big ole ranch to kiss Cindy Sheehan's feet, but the next big debate is already underway. Assuming the war is a big mistake (and already lost), the next big question is: what to do about that?

Juan Cole today has a detailed plan for gradually extracting US forces without setting off a violent civil war.

I can't guarantee that these steps will resolve the crisis in the short or even medium term. But I do think that, if taken together, they would allow us to get the ground troops out without risking a big civil war or a destabilization of the Middle East. Once Iraq can stand on its own feet, I am quite sure that the Grand Ayatollah in Najaf will just give a fatwa for complete US withdrawal, and the US will have to acquiesce, as it did in similar circumstances in the Philippines.

Personally, I think U.S.A. OUT NOW! is as good a plan as any. It would take the US at least a month to organise and carry out a complete withdrawal in any case, during which period I think you would notice that currently recalcitrant Iraqi politicians are suddenly very keen to seek concensus and consolidate their positions of power. Any remaining pockets of violent terrorism would immediately lose 90% of their public support, and presumably either look to getting back to a more constructive lifestyle or waging jihad on the next front (Afghanistan Part II? Pakistan?).

I also think that the UN would be a better interim peacemaker than the discredited USA can ever hope to be, so if a more long-term withdrawal of troops is required to guard against civil war, it should involve UN forces taking over from US ones. Of course, this would require a complete and unconditional apology from the Bush administration, and the USA would quite correctly be expected to fully finance the UN operation. Could happen...???

Meanwhile, the same debate is waging in partisan US politics as Dems and Reps look to build a position on Iraq prior to the 2006 elections. Of course, the whole US political system is so deeply entwined with the US military-industrial complex that (even now) any real anti-war policies are not even being considered at the top levels. So what's new?

Enter the bloggers:

Bush is politically vulnerable at the moment, but the fractious Democrats are ill-poised to take advantage. The liberal base is out of sync with the most visible contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination (Sens. Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and John Kerry), all of whom voted for Bush's war, none of whom have embraced the calls for troop withdrawal.

This tension is being exacerbated by some of the newest players in the party: the Internet bloggers who enable grassroots liberals to network more easily and raise money without an OK from Washington. It's even possible that if the war drags on and top Democrats refuse to move leftward, the "net-roots" liberals might try to finance and champion their own presidential candidate - someone like Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, who on Wednesday called for the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2006...

A breakway left-wing candidate with massive grassroots support? John Conyers (Independent) for Prez? Could happen...?

(ASIDE: This is kind of ironic: the printed media filling me in on all the latest rants on the blogosphere. Mind you, I still got the info online via the ever-faithful Smirking Chimp!)