CSM column on why the US needs to talk with Iran, Syria

Thursday I have this column in the CSM. (Also here.)
Basically I’m arguing that it’s not a matter of noblesse oblige or doing anyone any favors. It’s a matter of pure cool necessity for the US to be able to talk to– especially– Iran, but also Syria and all of Iraq’s other neighbors, as it pulls the US troops out of Iraq.
The nub of the argument there:

A glance at a map will show why any “responsible” drawdown of US troops from Iraq requires Iran’s cooperation. Iran has the longest border with Iraq and dominates Iraq’s heavily populated east. In a crisis, it could easily close the sea lanes through which most US military supplies reach Iraq. It has longstanding relations with a broad range of Iraqi political groups.
It’s important to recognize – as the ISG also clearly did – that the US has no viable option either for any sustained increase in the US troop strength in Iraq or even for maintaining the current US deployment for very much longer. Both the sentiments of US voters and the constraining overall size of the US military prevent that.
There has to be a drawdown. The only question is this: Will it start sooner and be relatively orderly, or will it be delayed and run an increasing risk of being chaotic? And yes, the scenarios now foreseeable do include – if the delay is too long – a humiliating emergency withdrawal reminiscent of the US evacuation from Saigon in 1975 and Allied forces’ flight from Dunkirk in 1940.
Either way – whether the administration is able to fashion a policy that allows for a relatively speedy and orderly drawdown, or the drawdown is delayed and more like Dunkirk – it will need to engage in significant coordination with Iran if it is to avoid a debacle…

Further to that argument, I would add here that anyone who is now arguing against close US coordination on these metters with Iran and Syria, on whatever flimsy grounds, should be held responsible for all the additional deaths– of US soldiers as well as of Iraqis– that will occur for as long as the US withdrawal is thereby delayed.
(On a generally similar note, I see the WaPo’s Richard Cohen– who for long was a strong supporter of the war but a few months ago “reluctantly” came out as a critic– is today arguing that: “As with Vietnam, the ending is inevitable. We will get out, and the only question that remains is whether we get out with 3,000 dead or 4,000 or 5,000. At some point the American people will not countenance, and Congress will not support, a war that cannot be won. Just how many lives will be wasted in what we all know is a wasted effort is about the only question still left on the table. Realism dictates as few as possible.”)