No Military Solution?

So, today's Washington Post editorial begins with:

WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office.

Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.

Interesting - coming on the day of the foreign policy/national security debate.

I would note, however, that the simple presence of a large number of US forces on the ground doesn't automatically promote political reconciliation or facilitate a functioning government without some willing cooperation (or "buy-in") by key players. In short - the local elected officials have to want to make progress before progress can be made. Case in point: the United States. I'm not sure the US Government can reach Iraq-level results this weekend, but I am certain beyond any doubt there is no military solution to the problem.

More on this (and many other topics) in The Dawn Patrol.