Rob, sounds like you're doing a little Operational Design Process.

Let me suggest that many of the things we're concerned about are caused by our distrust of Iran and not the needs of the Iraqi state.

Any prime minister who can get Ahmadinejad on line 1 and Bush on line 2 probably isn't that concerned about finding allies in the event of external attack. Secondly, there was no security agreement with Kuwait in 91 and everything worked out OK.

Top down attacks on the enemy - "command and control centric" - didn't work in Iraq. Top down "inside the green zone" politics hasn't achieved much. Top-down economic development efforts haven't done anything. In fact, economic development organizations around the world have moved away from the top-down approach. Instead of building massive infrastructure, they give local entrepreneurs $50 loans.

Top down security arrangements aren't very important or useful. Take a look at the recent conflict between Maliki and Sadr. There was no capacity building. There was no joint police force. There was no signed document. We built a fence around Sadr City. The fence will stay until the Sadrists learn to play nice with others. The end.

Strategy should be simple. IMO, we need a one page document that lets us fence in every community in Iraq. Then, don't let them out until they agree to play nice together. It doesn't matter what they agree to as long as they're happy with it. We do COIN. They build their own nation. (With a little luck, they'll find a "Reagan" who won't try to interfere with the process.)

Oh, and we need need an agreement that says you guys won't ever need to go on trial in Iraq for doing your jobs. I'd rather "surrender" - to use a McCain term - than see one of you guys arrested by the people you're trying to help.