2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

October 28, 2006

Don't Withdraw, It's Time to Take Out Sadr

By Dennis Byrne

With Democrats prematurely "dancing in the end zone" in the conviction that the mid-term elections will endorse whatever it is that their party wants to do about the Iraq War, the time indeed has come for a "different approach."

It's time to take out anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr.

And whatever equally murderous fanatics are on the Sunni side.

But, wait. Wouldn't that propel Iraq into the "civil war" that Democrats have been saying that Iraq has been engaged in since the first day of the U.S. invasion? Wouldn't that upset the delicate balance among the three ethnic/sectarian groups that the U.S. and democratic-minded Iraqis are trying to sustain?

It could worsen those divisions, but only if the vast majority of Iraqis will settle for chaos over stability, suppression over freedom and violence over peace. Only if the majority of Iraqis are willing to stand aside while a minority of thugs and outside terrorists brings back the same kind of reign of terror imposed on them by Saddam Hussein. If the Iraqis, indeed, want that kind of hell-on-earth, then there's not much anyone can do to help them, and the U.S. ought to get out right now.

The removal of Sadr is the one, crucial step that no one has dared to face. But with Sadr's pal, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, railing against the U.S., for working out timetables and for engaging in a joint-Iraqi army raid on a Sadr militia unit, it's becoming ever more clear where a big part of the problem in this bloody country lies.

A day after al-Maliki and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad agreed to timelines for achieving important goals, al-Malki virtually disavowed them, telling a press conference that the government (presumably him) "represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it. The Americans have the right to review their policies, but we do not believe in timetables." He blamed the timetables on the approaching midterm elections, which, he said, "do not involve us."

Well, obviously they do, right up to their eyeballs. And no one understands that more than al-Maliki. But understanding be damned when you're doing Sadr's bidding. Sadr's large political party is a key member of al-Maliki's government. Sadr heads the Madhi Army, a Shiite militia that has fought U.S. troops. It also has run death squads against Sunnis.

If it's true that Iraqis want security and safety more than anything else--as we're constantly reminded by Bush administration critics who think peace is achieved by handing the county over to lunatics--then Sadr, his goons and all other sectarian militias must be confronted directly. Which is what a U.S. and Iraqi military operation was trying to do this week when it went after a high-ranking member of Sadr's death squads. Instead of praising the effort, al-Maliki criticized. It's as if al-Maliki wants the death squads to go unchallenged, to strengthen their cause by feeding fear among Iraqis who do, indeed, want to live in peace.

We are what's standing in the way of the slaughter that Sadr and other extremes would inflict on Iraq. If we left, then Democrats who want to us to get out pronto will see what a real civil war is. Whoever wins will establish the kind of beyond-control terrorist state that would provide Democrats the proof they need that state-sponsored terrorism is a direct threat to America.

Predictably, though, media analysts and commentators couldn't wait to criticize Bush for changing his tone, instead of changing his "stay-the-course" strategy. But not a word of criticism of Democrats who want quick disengagement, while failing to say how they would handle the carnage sure to follow in the aftermath of our disengagement.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006