Why Thomas Friedman and Juan Cole are both wrong.

Juan Cole seems to be pretty accurate in his analysis of the situation, past and present. I think his prescription for future action is wrong philosophically, although I can't argue with his critique of our options. Friedman is just wrong.

Friedman first. I can't seem to find his column online, but in this morning's newspaper, he argued that the jury is still out as we wait to see what sort of country the Iraqis voted for, united and compromising or splintered and confrontational. As Aaron Brown put it during Katrina, doesn't he watch television? Or read newspapers?

The vote divided on sectarian lines and tended to go strongly for religious lists. The secular candidates that the neocons hoped would do well were crushed. The hope was that Allawi and Chalabi would get 20% and 5%, respectively. Allawi is under 10% and Chalabi has dropped out of sight.

The Sunnis only have a negotiating position if they can obtain something by violence. Otherwise, they get a million acres of stinking desert as their patrimony. Civil war will continue and grow.

Cole sees this outcome, but thinks we have a moral obligation to keep it below the level of conflicts that were seen in the Balkans and Lebanon. I lack his deep knowledge of the region, so I won't contest the notion that if we leave, there will be a bloodbath. I am a little queasy about the minimal interference option, which Cole and Rep. Murtha seems to like, since it sounds a lot like Vietnamization.

Rather than trying to negotiate with the winners, the non-Kurd losers are complaining about fraud. Their concerns will be considered by an electoral commission controlled by the winners. Good luck!

I can't fathom why Friedman thinks another 6 months will be needed to sort out the results. The Kurds and Shiites won again. They have been winning consistently and they have no reason to give anything up. The promise to renegotiate was always a farce. They held and still hold all the cards.