Failure -- an option

Today, David Brooks looks at the past few years of our engagement and sees a waste of time. Tough luck for the Iraqis who had to suffer while we foolishly developed "benchmarks" and sought "political reconciliation" and "security." Our bad.

But, like so many apologists for our misadventure in the Middle East, Brooks looks at "failure" and calls it "success." Because now we're beginning to recognize that a dismembered country run by warlords and "thugs" would be stupendous.

Christ, he's a tool. I especially love this:

The original idea behind the surge was that U.S. troops would create enough calm to allow the national politicians to make compromises. The surge was intended to bolster the “modern” — meaning nonsectarian and nontribal — institutions in the country.

But the surge is failing, at least politically, because there are practically no nonsectarian institutions, and there are few nonsectarian leaders to create them. Security gains have not led to political gains.

At the same time, something unexpected happened. As Iraqi national politics stagnated, the tribes began to take the initiative. The process started in Anbar Province, when the local tribes revolted against Al Qaeda. It has continued in Diyala Province and even in Baghdad neighborhoods like Ameriya. In the South, moderate Shiite parties have begun to resist the Sadrists, while in many places local groups that look like mafia families struggle to impose order on their turf.

In other words, organic local actors — some thuggish, some not — have begun to impose a security structure on parts of the country. Some are independent, some require assistance from the U.S. troops supplied by the surge.

Oh, shit. All of us naysayers are going to be proven soooo wrong. See. Moderate Shiites are beginning to "resist the Sadrists." Does he mean the Badr organization?

In the south, the problem isn't Sunni Islamic extremists but at least three dueling Shiite militias. British forces sustained heavy attacks by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia for more than a year, and his followers Monday touted their withdrawal as a victory against the "occupation."

"If our presence on the streets is inflammatory, it's better (that) we're out," said a Western diplomat in Baghdad, who said she was confident that the Iraqi security forces, although they've been heavily infiltrated by Sadr's men and by members of the rival Badr Corps, could handle the second-largest city in Iraq. The diplomat spoke on the condition of anonymity because she wasn't authorized to speak on the record.

"We wouldn't be handing over Basra until the Iraqi security forces and the government in Iraq are ready," she said.

On Monday, however, the supplemental security forces sent to the port city, valuable for its oil wealth and access to the Persian Gulf, were from Iraq's National Police, which are heavily infiltrated by Shiite militias. They'll supplement 28,000 local police and Iraqi soldiers already in the city, said Basra police spokesman Karim al-Zaidi.

Over the past two weeks, the city quieted as British patrols disappeared from the streets and the city prepared for the handover. The sounds of rockets, mortars and roadside bombs, once heavy night and day, had nearly stopped.

The Mahdi Army, which had been bombarding the British in Basra with daily mortar attacks, and has the largest on the ground Shiite militia, declared the withdrawal a victory.

"It gives us great pleasure and pride, and this came about because of the hits of the honorable resistance represented by the Mahdi Army that resisted so the occupier would leave," a leading member of the Mahdi Army said. "We are so happy that our efforts and sacrifices were crowned by success."

Local leaders heralded the withdrawal as a "dream." A high-ranking police official, however, said he fears that with the British exit, the Americans may try to enter the city, which he said would provoke a much higher level of violence. He said the British troops had "no role in providing security" and "let things continue between gunmen."

So, there you have it. Finally, some peace and security takes hold in the south (where we really were expecting to be greeted with sweets), with our good friends the Badrists all set to take on the Sadrists while the Mahdi's take on the Iraqi "security forces."

BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 — A power struggle between rival Shiite groups erupted Tuesday during a religious festival in Karbala, as men with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades fought street battles amid crowds of pilgrims, killing 50 people and wounding 200, Iraqi officials said.

Witnesses said members of the Mahdi Army, the militia of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, traded fire with security forces loyal to the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

During hours of fighting, several vehicles and a hotel for pilgrims were set ablaze, and terrified pilgrims who had been praying at two shrines were trapped inside as clashes erupted nearby. Witnesses said buses that had been used to bring pilgrims to Karbala were bullet-shattered and bloodstained.

The government forces in Karbala and other towns in southern Iraq are dominated by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and its armed wing, the Badr Organization. Many Badr fighters are veterans trained by Iran when they lived there as exiles under Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Tensions between the Mahdi Army and the Badr Organization have simmered for months. Both are vying for control of the overwhelmingly Shiite regions of central and southern Iraq. Two provincial governors belonging to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council were assassinated in southern Iraq this month, although the Sadrists deny involvement.

The showdown will prove embarrassing for Mr. Maliki if his security forces cannot control the Mahdi Army and restore order in a holy city in his own Shiite heartland.

Splendid. We couldn't have hoped for better chaos.