1115.org

Time’s Charles Crain argues that the best strategy for Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army for the moment is simply to lie low, “(rather) than risk another major confrontation like the battles of 2004 in which they lost thousands of men”. Crain argues:

It may simply make tactical sense to stand down the Mehdi Army temporarily, denying the U.S. military a target. Meanwhile the Shi’ite-dominated Iraqi security forces, which include many Sadr sympathizers and actual members of his militia, continue their fight against Sunni insurgents.

If the Mehdi Army openly attacks Sunni insurgents, they merely invite firm U.S. retaliation at a time when the U.S. has committed itself to taking stern action against both sides of the sectarian strife. Much smarter to fight the Sunni insurgents by proxy, through the official Iraqi security forces, and in tandem with U.S. forces.

The Sunni insurgents, of course, have an equally obvious counter-strategy: launch “escalating terror attacks” that claim a huge toll of Shi’ite lives.

If violence directed against Shi’ites demands a more public show of force by the Mehdi Army, it may be forced to break cover and risk becoming targets of U.S. firepower.

I read Crain’s article on Friday evening. And I woke up Saturday to the news of a suicide attack on a market in a predominantly Shi’ite area that left 135 people dead:

It was the deadliest single bombing in Baghdad since the U.S.-led war began here in March 2003.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence. Or maybe things are playing out exactly to the script that Crain envisaged. If so, it raises truly uncomfortable questions about WTF we’re doing in Iraq. Because Crain’s argument is essentially that if we act in ways that are tantamount to taking the side of the Shias in Iraq’s civil-war-by-any-other-name, in effect we force the Sunnis into perpetrating this kind of carnage, just to try and level the playing field.

The corollary to his argument is that there is really no good role for us to play at this stage in Iraq. Allying ourselves with al-Maliki’s government makes us the precipitator of the worst kind of violence. Allying ourselves with anyone else is unthinkable. Remaining neutral and unallied is not an option. We have well and truly painted ourselves into a corner.

There is simply no path from where we are to “victory” or “stabilization” or an Iraq that can govern, sustain and defend itself. There is no feasible endpoint that does not result in untold carnage.

The choice we face is simple. We can recognize this ugly truth now, and take the hard decisions necessitated by that recognition. Or we can allow ourselves to be deluded (for six months more?) by the jingoistic rhetoric that decrees that we must – MUST – continue to strive for a victory that simply cannot be attained. And there is no doubt that making a clear-sighted choice is complicated by our sense of guilt at having created this nightmare to begin with.

But the American people have still found the honesty, the strength, the moral fiber to reject the jingoistic rhetoric and recognize and accept the ugly truth. Why is it so hard for our so-called leaders? (By which I mean not Bush and his co-conspirators, but our elected representatives in the House and in the Senate.) They didn’t have the guts to lead us in this, the most important issue of our time. But even when there is a clear and robust national consensus against the jingoistic rhetoric, they don’t even have the guts to follow us? And about 15 or 20 of them want to be our next president?