I guess everyone's considered it, but the editor of Roll Call came out and said it. A potential "Plan B" for Iraq would be to allow the civil war to bloom, and force the Sunnis into a realistic appraisal of their position through the process of death, death, and more death. I don't think this is a good idea, as it will position us as the primary western backers of Shiism (a role I don't think we desire).
Roll Call is subscription-only, but the entire article appears to be reprinted here.
Apparently Kondracke is considered a liberal, but I have no idea if this proposal is generally accepted among the Dems. Frankly, I haven't heard a realistic assessment from the Dems yet as to how they would go about disentangling our nation from Iraq. As per the article I referenced in an earlier thread, the choices we face once we decide to get out go from bad to ugly to catastrophic. I know politicians don't want to show those sorts of options to voters, but I really wish the Dems would grow a spine and tell it like it is. The President is unable or unwilling to do so, and it would be a refreshing change if somebody would be honest about Iraq. Perhaps I'm expecting too much from our craven political parties.
Kondracke's proposal is cold-blooded and immoral, which is not to say that it wouldn't work.
Excerpts:
The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious.
No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it - and he wants to stay anonymous. But he argues persuasively that it's the best alternative available if Bush's surge fails. Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows.
On the other hand, as Bush's critics point out, bloody civil war is the reality in Iraq right now. U.S. troops are standing in the middle of it and so far cannot stop either Shiites from killing Sunnis or Sunnis from killing Shiites.
Winning dirty would involve taking sides in the civil war - backing the Shiite-dominated elected government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and ensuring that he and his allies prevail over both the Sunni insurgency and his Shiite adversary Muqtada al-Sadr, who's now Iran's candidate to rule Iraq.
Thoughts?
Bookmarks