A reader asks:
Does it really mean losing Iraq? The goal of a unified Iraqi government as originally envisioned may be lost - but three separate confederated states bound by shared geography, culture, and a central city (Baghdad) may be possible. I think Galbraith raises a possible way of achieving that. The Shiite areas if secured and made independent may not automatically spin into Iran' s clutches (Iranian mullahs have a hard enough time controlling Iran and don't underestimate the Arab-Persian differences). Provided Sunni areas do not become an al Qaeda haven - I could see us working out some sort of compromise there too.
I agree Rumsfeld and Cheney screwed this up - but we have to deal with what we have now, not what we had several years ago.
I'm loath to predict anything at this point. But Galbraith's proposal does seem to me a sane and least worst one. And the result, if successful, may not be so bad.