Maliki may issue a major crackdown on the critical Sunni forces the US has helped take on al Qaeda in Iraq as early as November. Joe Klein weighs our options:
Whose side are we on if Maliki launches the crackdown [on the Sons of Iraq]? Brimley and Kahl think we can influence Maliki’s behavior by threatening to withold U.S. military support–but that may be exactly what the overconfident Maliki wants. Then again, what choice do we have? I doubt that even John McCain will argue that the role of the U.S. military will be to defend the Sons of Iraq in the coming battle. My guess is that the end result in Iraq is an authoritarian Maliki- or military-led Shi’ite government, less toxic than Saddam Hussein’s, which will stand closer to Iran than to Saudi Arabia in the regional Sunni-Shi’ite contest. The war in Iraq will not have been "lost," but can this be reasonably described as "victory?" I think not. It can be best described as a terrible, shameful waste of lives and resources.
It is critical that intelligent observers note the decline in violence in Iraq, but insist that the full facts of the tragic waste of lives and resources are well-known. I have no idea whether McCain’s moronic "victory-or-surrender" rubric can account for critical issues such as this. But I doubt it. Here’s where Biden is needed to make the case against the McCain policy as powerfully and loudly as possible.
The Dish 