Jackson Diehl asks if the U.S. is playing a large enough role in Iraq. The New York Times reports that the U.S. has indeed been busy:
'As America winds down its war effort in Iraq, Mr. Khalilzad is among a growing list of former American diplomats and military officials now chasing business opportunities in the oil-rich Kurdish region or acting as advisers to its government. Some visit regularly, while others call the region and its booming capital, Erbil, home. Kurds treat them like dignitaries.The Kurdish region may be the only place in Iraq where Americans are still embraced as liberators. The authorities boast that no Americans have ever been attacked in a place that has enjoyed relative security.
'
Granted, this is engagement is of the unofficial variety. Diehl's point is that the Obama administration needs to be more hands on as Iraq tries to form a government:
'But retaining U.S. influence, and preventing Iraqâ??s destabilization, may require a stepped-up effort by Washington in the next few weeks. The month-long Muslim holiday of Ramadan begins Aug. 11; if Iraq does not have a government by then, the political and security situation could start to unravel. Though it canâ??t impose a solution, the United States retains the power of convocation. It can call all the main players together, perhaps in cooperation with UN mediators.The outcome that would most benefit the U.S. as well as Iraq is fairly clear: a unity coalition that includes the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties and balances their interests -- as well as those of their regional backers.
'
Is the problem in Iraq that the major stakeholders can't all sit around a room and hash it out? That's seems too easy.