Going to war against the Shiites would be a nightmare, and everyone
knows it. American forces could soon find themselves in firefights
not only with tens of thousands of armed and angry Shiite militants
but also with Iraqi police and army units, in or out of uniform.
The Pentagon could win such a conflict militarily, Keane told Rose,
"but in my judgment we should avoid it at all costs, and try to
resolve it politically."
In effect, Keane appears to be saying that the plan works at an
acceptable cost only if the United States can pacify the Shiite
militants without forcibly confronting them. To me, and possibly
also to the Sadrists, this looks like what gamblers call a
bluff.
So why shouldn't the Democratic Congress block such an unpromising
strategy? Three reasons point, I think, independently in the same
direction.
First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief,
not 536. A determined president can evade all but the tightest
congressional attempts to override his military decisions, and any
sufficiently tight congressional strictures are likely to
emasculate the presidency and fracture the Congress.
Second, politics. Blocking the president's last-resort plan would
divide the country for years to come. Many Republicans would
believe that the war was winnable and that Democrats lost it. If
the United States is going to leave Iraq, it should do so when even
Republicans agree that there is little reason to stay -- which they
will, if Bush's Hail Mary pass fails.
Third, morality. America has not quite discharged its debt to Iraq.
Apart from evacuating as many as possible of those Iraqis who
personally aided the American effort, the United States can do
nothing for moderate and peace-loving Iraqis if the Baghdad
government is determined to press or abet a sectarian agenda. A
tragedy will unfold. But if there is any chance that the Iraqi
government might yet be salvageable, then the United States owes it
to the Iraqis to find out.
Once the surge takes place, Americans are likely to know in a
matter of months whether the Maliki government is serious about
pacifying Shiite militants, coming to terms with Sunnis, and
cleaning up the ministries and security forces. If not, Washington
can begin withdrawing forces and shift into damage-control mode --
not without guilt, but at least with certainty.
© Copyright 2007 National Journal
Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer and columnist for National
Journal and a frequent contributor to Reason. The article was
originally published by National Journal.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
Jordan Shoes|8.12.11 @ 10:48PM|#
so perfect.
دليل|10.7.11 @ 8:39AM|#
asasgasd