Victory in Iraq?

One of the most annoying things about this presidential race is that everyone feels compelled to say that we're winning in Iraq. What? Winning?

We have a massive troop presence there. The surge tactic was an okay way to temporarily keep the civil war from raging too openly. That's not really winning though. It's more like wasting time, postponing the inevitable.

We're going to be leaving sometime, right? Hopefully? Then the civil war will just start back up again. And there's no way the central government is going to win. The government is so corrupt, so fractured, so lacking in anything like morale, that it will never be viable. Everyone knows that.

The Shiite majority is definitely going to win the civil war. Under Saddam, the Sunni minority oppressed the Shiites. They're not going to take it now that he's gone.

Muqtada al-Sadr, the young Shiite cleric, leader of the Mahdi Army, is probably going to come out in a leadership role. If we were to leave Iraq right now and let them fight it out, that's probably what would happen.

And you know what? That's fine with me.

Muqtada al-Sadr could be the key to lasting peace in the entire region. As a Shiite cleric, he is extremely close to the Shiite clerics in Iran. And his cousin is Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon. These guys are close and natural allies. Together they form an important Shiite counterweight to Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, and the other Sunni extremists who currently control the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia has dominated the Middle East since we put the Al Saud family on the throne fifty years ago. Look where that's gotten us. To me, it's a good thing to let the Shiites assert themselves in the region. We will be safer if the balance of power doesn't stay with Saudi Arabia.

What would happen if we left Iraq? Would we lose? Would we be in danger? No. Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and Hezbollah would step up. Saudi and Al Qaeda influence would be diminished. And that would make us far safer in the long run.