Andrew Sullivan brings a radical solution on Iraq to the table. In fact it's SO radical some may call him crazy.
I'd be one of those people.
So here's a thought: why not send Bill Clinton? For some reason that eludes my own judgment, Clinton has a great deal of cachet in the Middle East, and could defuse the anti-Bush and thereby anti-American obstacles to success. He was, by all accounts, superb at the Doha/Brookings/Saban summit in 2003. He would bring the Democratic party into a much more constructive role in trying to bring about a serious step forward for Iraq, and help unite the country at home.
Does Sullivan read his own stuff? I mean, seriously. George W. Bush would never ask Bill Clinton to help save his bacon in Iraq precisely because it would help the Democratic party and unite the country. Those have never been goals of this administration. Ever. This is the administration who saw the worst terrorist attacks in the history of this country as a great way to gain electoral advantage and played cynical politics with things like the formation of the DHS, originally a Democratic initiative. They have no interest in uniting the country and they certainly have no interest in doing anything that would help Democrats, even collaterally.
Need I remind Andy that the "anti-Bush obstacles to success" were obstactles of his own making? It wasn't some other administration that thumbed it's nose at the world and told the U.N. to take a hike. The U.S. is practically alone in trying to rebuild Iraq by choice. Bush created these obstacles, they didn't appear in a vaccum.
The sad reality is that Bush IS the obstacle to success.
Nothing will begin to change for the better in Iraq until in and around January, 2009. That's when the biggest obstacle for success will be removed.
Until that time neither Bill Clinton nor the cloned and re-animated body of Gandhi could bring some semblance of normality to Iraq. No amount of wishing will make it so.