Our least bad option: If I was king

OK, I've taken flak (mostly in other fora) for complaining about what I regard as huge strategic blunders in our Mesopotamian Adventures. Fine to throw spitballs, people say, but how about offering up something constructive?

OK, so here I go. This could be our least bad option as regards Iraq. If I was king, or if I had any sway at all in international relations, here's the line I'd push. The thing for the United States Government to do is to begin good faith and arms' length negotiations with Moqtada al-Sadr. If you squint a little bit, you could spell Moqtada al-Sadr "Saddam Hussein." No, really.

The "conservative" pundits I listen to and read seem to regard al-Sadr as a sock-puppet for the Iranians. That's not my take. He's Shia? No kidding. And so are the Persians. He's also far more explicitly anti-Persian than, say, Nouri al-Maliki. (You remember al-Maliki, right? "Our boy in Baghdad"? The Prime Minister? The one who was just paying a state visit to Iran?)

One of my underlying convictions is that what politicians call themselves doesn't really matter. I look at our Congress. Now, if you're a true liberal, ask yourself, how many of my representatives really believe like I do? If you're a good conservative, ask yourself, how many of my representatives are really concerned about the things I'm concerned about? Try and be honest. Look at how some new cause celebre (Darfur, gay marriage, telecom immunity) appears and wow shazam boy! Don't they get worked up.) Not a whole lot seems to change, though. Does it?

Here's a newsflash. Joseph Stalin was a Stalinist. He wasn't a Communist. (Not that this should be taken as an endorsement of Communism, mind you!) Look at history. Were the kings and shahs of the ancient world really dedicated to the principle of the diving right of kings and shahs as an idea, or because they happened to be the kings and shahs with all the divine rights? You ever watch Elmer Gantry?

Now, my take is that Moqtada al-Sadr is a man we could work with. (Let's face it, we need one.) He's probably got the street cred, he's got as good a substitute Iraqi Army as the one we're renting now, he's more anti-Iranian than the guy we're backing, and he's young and a comer.

If I was king, I'd be on the phone saying, "Moqtada, baby." Yeah if I was king I'd talk like a Hollywood producer. "Moqtada, here's the deal. We came in to Iraq to make a splash, maybe our motives weren't as clear as we would have hoped. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, true. Long term, though, we can't run this show on our own. We need an ally. This is a tough neighborhood. Here's the deal. We'll stop harassing you, and negotiate an accord with you personally to withdraw from Iraq. You'll be the man who ended the occupation, and you'll be golden.

"Here's what we need. We need you to maintain Iraq as a strategic counterweight to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not launch war against them, not stonewall them. We agree with you that the Islamic Republic's model isn't right. You are Shia but you are Iraqi, and you can work with us to keep untold thousands from dying. Iraq can be the pivot between the predominately Sunni-run Arab world and the Shia-run Persian Islamic Republic.

"In order to do that, you'll have to find a way to get along with your Sunni brethren Iraqis. This will be hard, but that's one of the reasons we want to work with you: we think you can do it.

"If you need help with Al-Qaida in Iraq, we're here to help. If you'd prefer to settle this internal matter internally, well, we'll be ready to begin a wind-down of our presence in Iraq."

I could be wrong about this. Maybe Moqtada al-Sadr really is a monster, maybe he really is a Persian sock-puppet, but I don't think so. I think cutting a deal with a popular local is the only way for the US to go forward. At present, our policy is not working, and we ought to remember the First Law of Holes.