The idea is neither new nor without merit. But, should it be attempted, footage of Iraqis migrating en masse to their designated zones -- as in "Exodus, movement of jah people" -- could backfire. In fact, it might even evoke the pity for Iraqis that casualty numbers have failed to.
Meanwhile, in March, Congress commissioned the Iraq Study Group to shake up our present policy. But don't expect to see the imaginations of great minds at play. The group is led by James Baker -- yes, that James Baker, the Bush family's designated fixer.
Meanwhile, among its members are former CIA director Robert M. Gates, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former Virginia senator Charles Robb, and, last but not least -- wait, make that definitely least -- Edwin Meese, Reagan's attorney general.
In the end, as Robert Dreyfuss explains in his September Washington Monthly piece "A Higher Power," we have two choices. Either we stay and fight, whatever the cost in lives and money, or we redeploy and ask Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations to step in. (Kindly contain your snickering.)
Persuading others (aside from our colony, Great Britain) to join us in our excellent Iraq adventure has always been little more than attempted extortion. At this point, what possible incentive exists for the UN and other countries to bail us out?
How about bringing war criminals to justice? Good idea, but unlikely to fly with most-wanteds Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
However, Baker has just been authorized to speak to a "high representative" of Tehran's government. From right to left and east to west, this can't help but be viewed as a promising development -- for Iran, though, not Iraq. Needless to say, while Baker is negotiating with a country, it won't be attacked.
Still, the administration, which always stands ready to snuff out any outbreaks of peace, might reel him back in and attack Iran anyway. Which, believe it or not, might be the answer to George Bush's prayers for Iraq.
Should an attack occur, Sunnis and Shiites alike will be shaken awake from the mass delusion that they're each other's enemies. Putting aside their differences, they'll unite against the US.
But how does that help the administration?
Despite the renewed offensive against US troops in Iraq, Bush & Co. can declare that sectarian violence has ended and pull them out. We can then redeploy our ground troops to Iran.
Wait, isn't Iran supposed to be an air war? Sure, just like Vietnam and Afghanistan. No-holds-barred bombing campaigns just broke the earth. In their wake, ground troops followed, sowing the seeds of liberty (or death -- its evil twin).
Meanwhile, this just in from the we-can-dream-can't-we department. . . since Iraq has fallen under the spell of Iran, why not just give it to Iran?
"What have you been smoking?" you ask. The US is as likely to give up a stake in a country as oil-rich as Iraq as it is to sever its ties with Saudi Arabia. Well, if all hell breaks out in the entire Middle East, there won't be a whole lot of drilling and refining going on for the foreseeable future. What do we get in return?
Iran agrees to halt uranium enrichment.