A reader responds to John O’Sullivan’s case for staying in Iraq:
All of the arguments I’ve been reading simplify matters, even when they, as this argument by John O’Sullivan does, show other arguments to be overly simple.
The International Crisis Group, in response to the ISG analysis, reports:
"Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton report’s suggestion, the Iraqi government and security forces cannot be treated as privileged allies to be bolstered; they are simply one among many parties to the conflict. The report characterises the government as a "government of national unity" that is "broadly representative of the Iraqi people": it is nothing of the sort. … The only logical conclusion from the report’s own lucid analysis is that the government is not a partner in an effort to stem the violence, nor will strengthening it contribute to Iraq’s stability."
This report by John O’Sullivan gives too much credit to this "national unity" government, saying it is one of "three politico-military forces that could plausibly win the kind of military victory that would determine the political shape of Iraq." A moment later he concedes that improvements must be made, but according to O’Sullivan they need only be "marginal," to get the extremists out of the government. But just a few paragraphs later he agrees that the Shiite militias – if we were to leave – "would have the backing of an increasingly Shiite-dominated government." We have got to stop believing in this unity government; if we really want to move ahead with a politico-military push for success, then we need to free ourselves of the illusion that the Maliki government either (1) is the force we are in Iraq to support (as Tony Snow has told us recently) or (2) can be easily salvaged.
(Photo: Waziq Kuthaie/AFP/Getty.)
The Dish 