Out of Iraq and... into Iran?

Thomas Friedman endorses withdrawal and almost has a good rationale for it. Then, at the last moment, he takes a sudden turn towards crazy:

Staying in means simply containing the Iraqi civil war, but at the price of Americans and Iraqis continuing to die, and at the price of the U.S. having no real leverage on the parties inside or outside of Iraq to negotiate a settlement, because everyone knows we’re staying so they can dither. Today, U.S. soldiers are making the maximum sacrifice so Iraqi politicians can hold to their maximum positions.

Getting out, on the other hand, means more ethnic, religious and tribal killings all across Iraq. It will be one of the most morally ugly scenes you can imagine — no less than Darfur. You will see U.S. troops withdrawing and Iraqi civilians and soldiers who have supported us clinging to our tanks for protection as we rumble out the door. We need to take with us everyone who helped us and wants out, and give green cards to as many Iraqis as possible.

But getting out has at least four advantages. First, no more Americans will be dying while refereeing a civil war. Second, the fear of an all-out civil war, as we do prepare to leave, may be the last best hope for getting the Iraqis to reach an 11th-hour political agreement. Third, as the civil war in Iraq plays out, it could, painfully, force the realignment of communities on the ground that may create a more stable foundation upon which to build a federal settlement.

Fourth, we will restore our deterrence with Iran. Tehran will no longer be able to bleed us through its proxies in Iraq, and we will be much freer to hit Iran — should we ever need to — once we’re out. [Emphasis mine]

I actually agree with the generalization of number four. It would in fact be a big improvement if the money we were paying to have this huge military were going to a huge military that we could actually use if we needed to. But, specifically, I think that withdrawing in order to be able to more legitimately intimidate or attack Iran is about the worst argument for the withdrawal policy I favor that I can think of. I guess that means that if we do withdraw, we can also look forward to the Friedman op-eds announcing our moral obligation to liberate the peoples of Iran and Israel from the nuclear mullahs that are terrorizing them.

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

Maybe Friedman has hit on something that Bush-Cheney/HalliRon could use to cover their Iraq failure with new aggression against Iran.

The story line would go:
"We've destroyed Iraq's capacity to terrorize the US, so we are turning our resources to bear on Iran where an even more serious problem is, and where we can destroy their capacity better with the hardened and experienced US troops from Iraq. We will prevail over this force of evil in Iran that wants to end western civilization and force our wives and daughters into sex slavery with heathens, and force our men into homo-sex-u-al degradation."

[/snark]