Sen. Biden's "soft partition" plan gains momentum

This according to Helene Cooper who cites an administration official stating "The truth is, we could end up close to the Biden-Gelb proposal." Though the administration is still behind the surge, there are clear indications that we are moving toward a Biden-Gelb approach, Cooper cites the positive reception to aspects of the plan from not only administration officials (as cited above), but also Foreign policy analysts, Capitol Hill politicians. I reviewed Sen. Biden's plan earlier this year here.

The arming of Sunni tribes and non-al Qaeda insurgents fits in this pattern, by allowing Sunnis (in this example) room to run their own security apparatus in Sunni majority regions. For obvious reasons, the Shiite led government isn't too happy about this.

The current plan moves toward a Biden-Gelb approach in decentralizing security in Sunni regions, devolving power to native forces, and moving away from using a largely Shiite army and police force to quell violence in largely Sunni areas. That approach has not worked, as many of these security forces have become infiltrated by Shiite militias bent on avenging years of oppression by Saddam Hussein and/or attacks by Sunni insurgents (particularly al Qaeda in Iraq) on Shiite civilians.

According to Cooper, the State Department in now pushing a proposal to "build up provincial reconstruction teams out in the Iraqi provinces, with the goal of strengthening local tribal leaders," further devolving power to the regions from the central government.

In language reminiscent of Tom Barnett, Sen. Biden has argued that "We're going to get there (soft-partition) either by our action or by our inaction; what we need to do is to manage this transition." Already he has gone to the UN Security Council to seek support for such a change in policy and was well received, with at least one person stating "What took you guys so long?".

As I pointed out in my review of Sen. Biden's plan, there are still some issues that have to be addressed, including the problem of how to deal with militias such as the Mahdi army which though primarily Shiite, are unlikely to accept such a partition quietly. This, in addition to the very treacherous waters we will have to navigate to get Iran, Syria, and Turkey to accept an autonomous Kurdish region in the north, not to mention the difficult issue of allocation of oil revenues. For a more in-depth look at the problems I found with Sen. Biden's plan, please click here. Already, Maliki is threatening to arm (as if this was not already happening) Shiite militias to counter U.S. efforts to arm Sunnis. So any partition plan, even a soft one will be fraught with a lot of problems from the start. Still, this now seems inevitable given the fact that as Cooper points out, Sunnis and Shiites (despite celebrating Iraq's soccer championship together) have shown little signs of seeking reconciliation.

What I like about Sen. Biden's plan is that it allows us to move away from the win-loose/stay the course-cut and run arguments heard so often with regard to Iraq. Instead it provides a real strategy for managing the conflict, allowing us to disengage responsibly, as well as giving us space to re-craft our strategy in fighting the much larger GWOT (or long war, or whatever it is we are calling it now). It's good to see it gaining some momentum.

As an aside, given how much time and effort Sen. Biden is giving one of the most important issues in our country, not to mention the 2008 campaign, (and the fact that by all accounts he has performed very well in every single debate so far) it sometimes baffles me that he is not taken more seriously by the media or voters. As E.J. Dionne Jr. asked following the early debates in June "Does Joe Biden have to set himself on fire to get serious attention?"