The War Generalissima Pelosi Can’t End – Part I

Morton Kondracke yesterday put forward what he called “Plan B”, a/k/a “winning dirty”, less, I suspect, as a real proposal than as an awful plausibility intended to prod anti-war liberals into thinking seriously about the consequences of an American bug-out from Iraq.

Right now, the administration is committed to building a unified, reconciled, multisectarian Iraq – “winning clean”. Most Democrats say that’s what they want, too. But it may not be possible. . . .

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. . . .

Prudence calls for preparation of a Plan B. The withdrawal policy advocated by most Democrats virtually guarantees catastrophic ethnic cleansing – but without any guarantee that a government friendly to the United States would emerge. Almost certainly, Shiites will dominate Iraq because they outnumber Sunnis three to one. But the United States would get no credit for helping the Shiites win. In fact, America’s credibility would suffer because it abandoned its mission. And, there is no guarantee that al-Sadr – currently residing in Iran and resting his militias – would not emerge as the victor in a power struggle with al-Maliki’s Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq [“SCIRI”], led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances . . . to al-Sadr, who’s regarded by other Shiites as young, volatile and unreliable. Under a win dirty strategy, the United States would have to back al-Maliki and the Badr Brigades in their eventual showdown with al-Sadr. It also would have to help Jordan and Saudi Arabia care for a surge in Sunni refugees, possibly 1 million to 2 million joining an equal number who already have fled.

No politically correct left-winger will be able to stomach the idea of supporting the perpetrators a huge campaign of ethnic cleansing for the sake of installing a pro-American dictatorship. But what does the Left prefer? Ethnic cleansing by an anti-American dictatorship? A proxy war among Iran, Turkey and Saudi-controlled Arabia? Endless chaos? Or will these champions of humanitarian values watch the slaughter without concern?

“Plan A” – whether in the form of Secretary Rumsfeld’s “light footprint” or General Petraeus’s “surge” – holds out the reasonable hope of an unambiguous victory and the certainty of a tolerable state of affairs. Against an enemy that relies almost wholly on the murder of civilians, we can bolster a friendly government indefinitely, at a cost in men and money that is well within our resources. It is an elementary axiom of warfare that guerillas cannot win until and unless they gather enough strength to launch conventional attacks. The mufsidun are centuries away from crossing that threshold and receding by the month.

But La Generalissima and her party don’t think that Plan A is good enough. Mr. Kondracke has proffered a shocking, right-wing “Plan B”. What “Plan B” does the Left have?

Comments

[Bart]

Petraeus's Letter has ensured that America will lose this war. Therefore we might as well leave Iraq now.