I have had it with offering advice to the Bush administration about what to do in Iraq. They don’t listen to me, or to the State Department, the CIA, our allies in Europe, or in the region. It’s actually counterproductive to offer advice to this administration. It creates the illusion of hope.

But I can say what I would do if I woke up tomorrow and discovered that I was the President.

The first thing I would do is look at what is going well, or what is right about the current situation. The first thing I would identify is that the people of Iraq, who are 60+ percent Shi’a and perhaps 20% Sunni Kurd, are no longer dominated by a Sunni Arab tyranny. That’s good. We can work with that.

There are problems associated with the Shi’a domination of the new Iraqi government and there are problems associated with the newfound autonomy of the Kurds. It makes Iraq’s neighbors nervous. But, taken as a whole, the new power structure is progress. Whatever government ultimately controls Iraq should be as representative of the Iraqi populace as possible, and a Sunni Ba’athist tyranny was never representative. Ideally, the Iraqis would emulate modern democracies and the losers of elections would peacefully accept their hiatus from power and expend their efforts at regaining power politically. But I don’t expect that to happen in Iraq. I expect their nascent democracy to devolve into a new tyranny.

The new tyranny will likely be Shi’a dominated, although the Shi’a’s relationship to the Kurds will likely remain an interesting wildcard.

If the new government becomes tyrannical and it is dominated by Shi’a, it will extend the influence of Iran (a Shi’a nation) westward and potentially cause some instability (Shi’a movements of self-determination) in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and, perhaps, Lebanon. But it will still be a fairer tyranny than the one that preceded it.

Although a Shi’a dominated Iraqi government will cause some instability in the region, I think it will be manageable. It will be manageable both for us and for the countries that experience some uptick in internal dissent.

So, even though we would like to leave Iraq with a stable democratically elected government, we don’t have too much to fear from a Shi’a dominated tyranny. In the 1980’s our biggest terrorism threat was posed from Iranian and Lebanese Shi’a. But it the 90’s and 00’s, our biggest threat has been from Saudi and Pakistani Sunnis. A strong Shi’a government in Iraq will help tamp down Sunni extremism in that country.

So, as President, my first determination would be that we can accept any outcome in Iraq that retains the current Shi’a/Kurd domination of the government.

Shed of any obligation to assure democracy, we can limit our support of the government to preventing any large scale, organized Sunni assault on the capital that would threaten to reinstall a minority Sunni tyranny.

In December the Iraqis will elect their parliament, and then in January that parliament will vote to ratify their constitution. I would keep our troops in place to provide security for these two votes. But in the meantime I would begin planning their demobilization, so that immediately after the ratification of the constitution our troops could begin to leave en masse.

Once the new government is in power under a ratified constitution I would agree to provide money, intelligence, and possibly some emergency crack troops or air power to prevent any coup attempts.

I would keep such arrangements as quiet as possible. The new government can not be, and it will not be in fact, mere puppets of our country. Yet, they will vulnerable to insurgencies for quite some time. I want to allow the new government to take actions that might be morally repellent to the average American (if they thought/knew that we were complicit in those actions). The actions needed to reassert control over Iraq will be neither easy or morally acceptable. We must come to grips with that harsh reality. But we should try to disassociate ourselves with the methods used to restore order. Chalk it up to one of the costs of our irresponsible meddling.

The important thing is that order is restored and that the government is no longer run by a Arab Sunni minority that imposes an iron grip over other sects and ethnic groups.

Now, I’ve stated a couple of times that I would be willing to accept a Shi’a tyranny as an acceptable outcome. But I don’t want that, and I don’t wish it on the Iraqi people. It’s just that I am not willing to sacrifice any American lives to prevent it. But there are other things I can do to try to prevent it.

I would immediately contact the governments of Norway, France, Russia, Japan, and China, and I would offer them a piece of the oil-field pie if they are willing to make an investment in providing security to the nascent Iraqi government. Those that say yes will get some lucrative contracts and those that say no will not. It’s totally up to them.

If I didn’t get enough response I’d even talk to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Naturally, I would do this in consultation with the Iraqi government. I’m not talking raw imperialism here.

What we want is a stable government that can produce a steady supply of oil and gas. We want that both for selfish and for altruistic reasons. That result will best benefit both us and the Iraqis. Sharing the pie with our allies and foes is the best way to create some international support for stability in the country. Lord knows the support is not likely to happen in Turkey (because of the Kurds), Iran (because of a myriad of self-interests), from Syria (because they are still Ba’athists), or from Saudi Arabia and Jordan (because they are monarchies).

The only hope for stability and legitimacy is from the so-called imperial powers and their business relationships with the nascent government.

Now, some people will say that we have no right to pursue any strategic or business advantage out of this morass. We started a war under false pretenses.

I would argue that no President would be responsible if he did not pursue our national strategic and business interests. If I took over tomorrow, our national interests would be foremost in my mind. My goal would be to preserve lives while protecting our national interests. I think out interests would be best protected by opening up the Iraqi contracts to truly competitive bidding, even granting some contracts to our non-competitive foes (in exchange for support of the new government in Iraq).

Our interests (and immense investment) would not be served by allowing an Arab Sunni insurgency to prevail. This is true especially because the Arab Sunni insurgency does not represent the majoritarian will of the people. Because the Sunnis do not represent the majority I think we can prevent their restoration with a minimum of troop strength. The Shi’a dominated government may feel the need to utilize harsh measures to restore order. They may never again have another fair election. If so, so be it. We should not sacrifice lives and treasure to assure the human rights of the new Iraq. Our efforts would not be likely to succeed in any case.

I could say a lot more about the intricacies of the current situation. But I wont. If I were President, I would get our asses out of Iraq by March 2006. I would continue to offer support to the government, but I would not assure them of anything beyond assurances that we will not allow a restoration of Ba’athism.