The end of John Bolton's UN career is a positive development, in that it's at least another reminder that we can stand firm and win.
But by itself, it's not going to do anything to change White House foreign policy.
Note that Bolton's predecessor, John Danforth, was no neocon. We still invaded Iraq.
The more important development, long-term, was Dubya's meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who leads one of main Shia parties in Iraq's "governing" coalition: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
In solidifying ties with Hakim, the White House is trying to isolate Moqtada Al-Sadr, another Shiite, who leads about 30 members of Iraq's parliament -- as big a bloc as Hakim's.
Sadr has been held up as one of Iraq's main problems, because he controls the Mahdi Army militia, which engages in sectarian violence.
So we should hook up with Hakim, right?
Except that Hakim controls the Badr Organization militia, which also engages in sectarian violence.
(Mahdi and Badr forces also are known to fight each other.)
Arguably, Sadr's people engage in more sectarian violence than Hakim's.
But Hakim's party is arguably closer to Iran than Sadr.
If the goal is a stable Iraq, we need to support credible democracy.
To get a credible democracy, we have to engage all parties in Iraq, work to resolve sectarian differences and disarm all militias.
When we play favorites, it tells the Iraqi people we are dismissing their will and trying to control who leads their government. That's what's truly destabilizing.
And playing favorites in the middle of a multi-party civil war, effectively picking sides, is particularly destabilizing.
We need to change our fundamental foreign policy goals in Iraq and beyond -- move away from imposing phony democracy and towards supporting credible democracy.
Bolton was a symbol of reckless right-wing foreign policy. But getting rid of him doesn't rid us of the policy.
UPDATE (12/5/06 10:15 AM ET): The American Prospect's Spencer Ackerman had an interesting exchange with Hakim yesterday.
email