Iraq choices -- Extremely bad and even worse

David Brooks, in this morning's edition of Eugene, Oregon's daily newspaper, the Register-Guard, offered a solution for Iraq. "Soft" partition. Sounds good, but we've been there before.

It fails on the fundamental calculus of Iraqi oil and population. The Kurds are 20% of the population and control 40% of the oil. The Shiites are 60% of the population and control 60% of the oil. The Sunni Arabs are 20% and have nothing to speak of. These are rough numbers, but they illustrate the problem.

The Kurds hate the idea of Iraq. They are not interested in giving up anything in order to make it viable and they have negotiated a national constitution that gives them what they want. Asking them to give up Kirkuk and some of their oil in order to achieve something they don't want doesn't sound reasonable.

The Shiites would take a strong national government, because their 60% of the population would give them control. Even if they shared nicely, they would get 60%. However, if the Kurds exit with their oil, the pie shrinks. The Shiites can still get 60% if they follow the Kurdish model, and if it's good enough for the Kurds, why not them? They in fact have also enshrined this in the sacred Iraqi constitution that we helped bring about.

Leaving the Sunni Arabs. Brooks thinks that if they agreed to stop fighting, the other parties will give them things. The Sunnis doubt this. The Sunnis may harbor thoughts of a final arrangement in which they get more than 20% of the action. They've had it in the past and they have much more military expertise per capita than the Shiites.

There are two possible scenarios. A bloody Civil War in which America participates for some time before giving up, and a bloody civil war in which America takes an early exit. I suggest the latter. Won't this lead to a humilitation for America and a blow to our economic and strategic interests in the Middle East? Yes, it will. Next question, please.