I know what itGÇÖs like to be on the ground. I know what itGÇÖs like to fight a war like this. And thereGÇÖsGÇöthere are limits to what the military can do. Eventually, this is going to have to move into a diplomatic environment. Now, thatGÇÖs where this administration seems to have blinders. TheyGÇÖre not talking to Syria, theyGÇÖre not talking to Iran. And there are ways that we can do this, move this forward.If you look at what we did after Afghanistan, in the invasion of Afghanistan, we actually brought the countries around Afghanistan to the tableGÇöincluding Iran, by the way. Iran was cooperating at that time, before President Bush made his GÇ£axis of evilGÇ¥ speech and they stopped cooperating. The eventual way out of thisGÇöand it can be done soon, with the right leadershipGÇöis for us to get something similar to what we had with the, the Madrid conference in 1991 after Gulf War I, get these countries to the table, and have them work out a formula. Sooner or later, weGÇÖre going to leave. And when we leave, the countries that are tangential to Iraq are going to be players. We should overtly push that now.
Allen has repeatedly criticized Webb on this point. But, hey, why take the war strategy of an Annapolis grad, decorated Vietnam vet and former Secretary of Navy over a guy who played a confederate general in a movie.
Anyway, renowned Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria agrees that Iran and Syrian must be involved:
There is one shift that the United States itself needs to make: we must talk to Iraq's neighbors about their common interest in security and stability in Iraq. None of these countries - not even Syria and Iran - would benefit from the breakup of Iraq, which could produce a flood of refugees and stir up their own restive minority populations. Our regional gambit might well lead to nothing. But not trying it, in the face of so few options, reflects a bizarrely insular and ideological obstinacy.
Well, I can think of one Democrat that would immediately bring such a view to the table.