"Plan B" for Iraq

One cannot but wonder why Muslims (of whatever stripe) and anti-Americans everywhere do not simply scream blue murder--and maybe try to suggest something effectual--in an effort to stop the killing.

Scoring points seems all that many people wish to do, rather than consider human life. Saddam was evil. The US bungled, very badly, the occupation. Is being anti-Bush morally better than not condemning those actually doing the killing?

And are the frontiers of an artificial state worth preserving? The Muslim countries pay a huge amount of attention to the Palestine/Israel problem - where far, far, fewer Muslims are being killed.

Why this odd priority, if people are what one cares about rather than religion or attitude? Do Muslims have any suggestions for the future of Iraq, other than US withdrawal and concomitant slaughter? Quelle solution.

"Plan B"--blah, blah, blah:

On the other hand, an orderly withdrawal has its advantages. Taking sides would keep both U.S. troops and credibility mired in Iraq. It would make it more difficult to marshal significant forces and political capital to address other pressing challenges like Afghanistan and Iran. And if, in taking sides, the administration fully embraces the logic of the 80 percent solution, it risks U.S. complicity in a “final solution” for the 5 million Sunnis in Iraq. Beyond the obvious moral implications here, empowering the Shiite majority and its efforts to crush Iraqi Sunnis might cause the fragile coalition of Sunni Arab states Washington is currently stitching together to fly apart. Moreover, as the declassified 2006 NIE on terrorism recognized, the perception of the continued U.S. “occupation” of Iraq feeds the anti-Americanism that drives jihadi recruitment around the world. It might therefore be preferable to withdraw U.S. support from the Iraqi government altogether rather than risk being a party to genocidal violence and the spark for a regionwide sectarian war and greater terrorism worldwide.

Given the strategic and moral stakes, we should hope that President Bush’s new plan indeed spurs important Iraqi political changes—a new oil law, a rollback of de-Baathification, local elections that empower Sunnis, demobilization of militias, etc.—that produce genuine national reconciliation. But we should not count on it. Instead of fixating on the pros and cons of the surge (which, for all intents and purposes, is a done deal), the U.S. public and Congress should be thoroughly analyzing the options for Plan B while there is still time for reasonable debate. Discussion needs to start now, not six or nine months from now. If it doesn’t, the likely result will either be another fait accompli by the Bush administration that puts in place its preferred Plan B if the surge fails, or a rushed withdrawal driven more by domestic politics in the United States than its geopolitical interests and humanitarian obligations in Iraq.

I have no answers. I have one question, an honest one. Would it have been better to have allowed Saddam to remain in power?

Mark C.

Posted by markc at March 30, 2007 12:01 AM