Well, now that the elections are over and the Dems are strutting their new-found power and influence, and the Reps are groveling suitably, baring their necks to the new alpha dogs; the time has come to do a little speculation on just what is going to happen in Iraq. There is no question that the Republican program, however promising it might have seemed from the start, has failed utterly in it's real aims: to drive a wooden stake into the heart of the Islamofascist world. Yeah, forget all that crap about WMDs, Al-Quaeda connections, saving the Iraqis from an evil tyranny, bringing democracy to the middle east, fighting terrorists, wag, wag, wag. That's the Tonkin Gulf Incident and Domino Theory of the 21st century. We won't dwell on the obvious, but the fact is they stepped on their dick big time, not so much because they had the wrong idea, but because they couldn't pull it off. Worse, every day that goes by the situation deteriorates further and whatever chance there might have been to even broker a face-saving draw recedes further into the distance. You had your chance and you blew it, so shut up and listen.

But let's face it, the Democrats do not have a clue either as to what they're going to do next, and knowing my party for the fractured gang of conflicting impulses they are, I doubt we're going to get much out of them in terms of a coherent plan. Not only will they not be able to agree on a strategy, but whatever disjointed compromise does emerge from their contorted deliberations will doubtless be a mass of conflicting ideas and wishful thinking.

And let's not forget the divided American political system and the exquisite timing of this mid-term election and the sunset days of a lame duck president. The Republican strategists now know that the heat is off them, if anything good comes out of the next two years, they can claim some credit for it, at the very least, for being "bi-partisan". Things may look bad for them now, but at least they're not likely to look any worse. Everyone is looking to the Dems for answers. The departing Bush will take the residual shame and failure with him, a perfect scapegoat. The boy is going to take the fall for this one. On the other hand, if it turns into a disaster now, the Reps can always say, with some justification, "I told you so". I'm not saying that either side will do anything to sabotage the disengagement just for political gain, but whatever plan does emerge will be the only compromise that gives all the participants the lowest-risk option, that is how policy evolves when stress is not immediately perceived. Whether it will work or not is almost incidental to the political process. Watch for the following partisan maneuvers; whatever bad comes out of Iraq, the Dems will want it to look like it is all Bush's fault (which it is, he got us into this mess and he's still President). The Reps will want it to look like things were under control until the Dems won the mid-terms. You can see the blogosphere reacting already.

The talk now is to get the Syrians and Iranians into some kind of negotiations;and on the surface, this isn't a totally ludicrous idea. After all, they both have been shown willing to help us out...if it's in their best interest to do so. The Iranians were quite helpful when we went into Afghanistan, they were scared shitless of the Taliban, and Baby Bush has been outsourcing some of our torture work to Damascus. God only knows what they got out of that deal. Still, negotiating from a position of weakness with these guys is going to be really humiliating, and we haven't got much to offer them except the proverbial farm: severe pressure on Israel regarding Palestine, return of the Golan to Syria, reparations for the Iraqis, and carte-blanche for Iran's nuke program . The sobering truth is that both of these countries essentially have us where they want us, bleeding to death slowly in Iraq where they can cause all sorts of trouble for us for next to no cost and little risk to themselves. They certainly didn't want us to win there and install a pro-American regime but we pose no threat to them as long as we're bogged down, so they really don't want us to lose either. I think our strongest negotiating point with them is to simply threaten to leave Iraq overnight and leave the problem in their lap. But Americans, both Republican and Democrat, with their congenital inability to put themselves into another's mind-set, will never see this.

So what's the way out? Go all out in Iraq and fulfill the Cheney/Rumsfeld dream? Won't happen. We simply don't have the resources to pull it off. No money, no troops, no public support. It's not a political impossibility, it is a physical impossibility. It may have been possible three years ago, although that's pure speculation and water under the bridge anyway. Plan B, some kind of phased withdrawal to cover-up an inevitable defeat and hope we get lucky, is not going to work either. In fact, that is exactly what the gangsters in the region want: a prolongation of the status quo. My vote is for immediate withdrawal, as soon as possible, although I suspect that the Democrats will wait until after the Presidential election to do it (in case they win), or the Republicans will be forced to do it by public opinion in case they win. My prediction is that's when its likely to happen, although for the good of the country and Iraq it should happen now. That is, unless we give the Islamofascists everything they want, and I personally think that is too big a price to pay.

But just what is going to happen if we do cut and run? Suddenly, the situation changes and it's totally up for grabs; it's a high risk policy for us because a lot can go wrong, but it's the only way we can come out of this mess a winner, if we get lucky. No one knows what will happen if we pull out and let the Middle East implode into the vacuum, but I can guarantee what will happen if we stay too long. We will lose everything and gain nothing and Americans and Iraqis will continue dying.

Once we evacuate Iraq, the Syrians and Iranians will be faced with the problem. The civil war in Iraq will get even worse, and the majority Shia, with Iranian support, will begin a systematic oppression of the Sunnis. The rest of the Sunni world will not tolerate this, and they certainly will not tolerate Persian control of a major Arab country. Neither Syria nor Iran want a Taliban-type regime stealing their Islamic thunder, and of course, no one over there wants an independent Kurdistan. War, whether direct or by proxy, may erupt in the Middle East, but it won't be our war. It will be a conflict which will roll over the jihadist movement as the dictators over there start worrying about their own survival and the vulnerability of their oil fields and the Israel card is exposed for the provocative distraction it really is.

I also believe that we have been over-pessimistic about the consequences of a quick withdrawal for US forces. We have focussed on the worst case possible: a Taliban-style government in Iraq. This can't be ruled out, I suppose, but neither is it inevitable. What we do know will happen, expanded intenecine strife, possible civil war, perhaps spilling into the surrounding states, massive refugee movements, a Sunni/Shia conflict in the whole region, and other widespread chaos will have one major advantage for us, it will distract the Muslim world from their fixation with Israel, and they will have trouble blaming it all on us. The states of the region, of course, understand this much better than we do, which is why I am convinced they want us to stay as long as possible. They want us as a political whipping boy, and they will rush to claim credit for eventually kicking us out, but they know perfectly well when we do leave they are going to have their hands full, and only a NON-ARAB power, Iran, will be in a position to do something about it.

The big risk to us is loss of access to oil, but if the jihadists takes over Saudi Arabia we're going to lose it anyway, or be blackmailed forever for a fraction of what we need to keep our economy rolling. Our military will have to be deployed to protect the Gulf states to keep it flowing to us and to Europe, and Europe, forced by the threat of crippling shortages, will have no choice but to help us. As for the loss of innocent lives, this is an inevitability anyway. The ethnic and religious conflict in Iraq is going to be a catastrophe no matter what we or anyone else does, it is already, and we are powerless to stop it. Only a brutal occupation and a merciless heel of repression can put a stop to it, and if it has to be so, let it be Muslims that do it, not us.