Forward Observer: Last Best Chance

Retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, who learned the complexities of Iraq first hand by fighting as a soldier in Kurdish territory during the first Gulf War and by serving as President Bush's peacemaker during the second one, believes partitioning the country into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states is the only way to avoid an all-out civil war.

"Iraq is a states' right state, whether we want to admit it or not," Garner told me.

The idea of former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, embraced by Bush and the rest of his administration, to turn Iraq into a democratic Camelot standing on a hill above the seething sea that is the Arab world has indeed proven to be an unrealistic dream. Garner and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., are among those who believe there is no way that Nuri al-Maliki or any other nationally elected leader can pacify all of Iraq.

"Iraqis, at least in our lifetime, will refuse to accept any leader who does not share their ethnic, religious and tribal beliefs," Garner contended. "A dictator like Saddam Hussein could be forced on them. But the only way to stop the killing going on in Iraq now and foster a semblance of democracy is to partition Iraq into Shia, Sunni and Kurdish areas, where the majority would write a constitution that they could live with. The Iraqis in those areas would follow leaders who shared their beliefs, whether elected or appointed."

As for Baghdad and its environs, Garner believes it is too scrambled to turn into a zone with common beliefs.

Garner struggled with Baghdad's complexities in 2003 as Bush's first envoy, only to be summarily replaced by Paul Bremer, who reversed many of the general's plans, including keeping most of the Iraqi army intact to keep law and order in post-war Iraq.

Peace in Baghdad will depend on the rival sects and tribes reaching accommodations, as Garner sees it.

But for the rest of the country, this general -- who has been down in the sand -- sees partitioning as the last, best, untried hope for peace. He would let the federal government draw new boundaries based on where most of the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds lived.

Iraqis might stay put or move out of the area to one where they felt more comfortable under Garner's concept. But the leaders in each of the three zones, or states, would be from the fabric of the majority population.

As for Iraq's central government, it would have limited powers under the Garner concept, as was the case of the United States in its early years.

The Iraqi government would distribute oil revenues on the basis of population, levy some taxes, set standards for health and education, conduct diplomacy, but not send troops or police into the partitioned areas to impose law and order. The zones would pretty much police themselves, with present-day militias transformed into the main law and order force on their own turf.

"Partitioning is something we haven't tried in Iraq," Garner argued, "even though it worked in Kurdistan and the former Yugoslavia."

All right then, so why didn't he push partitioning when he was in a position to make it happen?

Garner said he did but ran into a solid wall of resistance put up by top Bush administration officials.

Reminded that Biden has long been pressing for partitioning with the same lack of success, Garner threw a salute to the Democratic presidential candidate.

"He is the only one of our sparring politicians who has laid out a realistic plan for pacifying Iraq. Everyone else just gives us rhetoric while Iraq slides toward civil war," he said.

During his presidency, Bush has repeatedly shown a disinclination to adopt and build on President Clinton's initiatives, successful or not, until the situation becomes desperate. Clinton's successful partition of the former Yugoslavia is one example.

Negotiating directly with North Korea to persuade its leaders to forego further development of nuclear weapons in exchange for such American goodies as fuel oil is another. Well, Mr. President, the situation is Iraq is now desperate.

With Democratic leaders in Congress having given up, at least for now, on forcing Bush through legislation to set a date certain for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, the lawmakers are in a pregnant pause as they wait for Gen. David Petraeus to report on the results of his surge strategy, which features moving more American troops into contested areas and living right with the population.

But there is no way that can be a permanent solution. You could reduce crime in Washington by stationing a cop on every block, but there would not be enough money or qualified police or public support to do that for years on end, as is the case with the surge in Iraq. Given the weakness of the al-Maliki government and unreliability of Iraq's national army, the time for U. S. leaders to seriously consider partitioning Iraq has arrived.

A sensible first step would be for some congressional committee to hear out Gen. Garner, who still keeps in touch with such Iraqi leaders as President Jalal Talabani and fervently does not want the American military to suffer another Vietnam.