While Iraq war opponents are loathe to admit it, the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq is not a ‘freebie.’ Once the United States ends its military involvement, Iraq will still be home to sectarian violence, al Qaeda fighters, economic and political unrest, and a host of other problems. Indeed, these problems are generally the rationale Democrats use to justify a pullout. But while opponents have not tired of asking for a ‘Plan B’ in Iraq, they have paid scant attention to the issue themselves. Roll Call’s Mort Kondracke offers one possible plan for victory in Iraq that does not require the continued involvement of American forces:
Without prejudging whether President Bush’s “surge” policy will work, the administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the “80 percent solution” – also known as “winning dirty.” 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.
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…
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, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.
Iran formerly backed the SCIRI and its Badr Brigades but recently switched allegiances – foolishly, my Congressional source contends – 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.
Mickey Kaus has pointed out before that by refusing to leave prosecution of the war in the hands of the president alone, Democrats have turned the political debate over Iraq from a ‘lay-up’ into a ‘toss-up.’ That is, while American voters in 2008 might reasonably decide that it was a mistake ever to go into Iraq, the aggressiveness of the Democratic Congress in its attempts to end the war render that question moot. Instead, voters are likely to look at Iraq as it exists on election day. As policymakers eagerly discuss benchmarks and consequences, it may be time to begin a dialog over what’s next. Democrats have variously endorsed a federalist system, complete withdrawal, and a narrow focus on training Irai troops, rooting out Al Qaeda and self-defense. None of these is without costs to American interests. With the national debate to choose our next president well under way, it’s about time to discuss the future.
