Krauthammer and Iraq

Charles Krauthammer says what needs to be said about the current Maliki government in Iraq. It is "hopelessly sectarian" (my italics). This puts Charles at odds with the president who has publicly kept backing Sadr's puppet. Then Dr K puts the real boot in:

The whole sorry affair illustrates not just incompetence but the ingrained intolerance and sectarianism of the Maliki government. It stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else.

We should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government. This governing coalition - Maliki's Dawa, Hakim's SCIRI, and Sadr's Mahdi Army - seems intent on crushing the Sunnis at all costs. Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us.

My italics again. If you unpack that column, you see the inexorable logic of our current impasse. The only way we can succeed in normalizing Iraq is if there is a genuinely non-sectarian national government. Despite four years of trying, the first such national government is, in Charles' words, hopelessly sectarian. The manner of Saddam's execution proves that Bush cannot control Maliki and/or Maliki cannot control his own government. The death squads control Baghdad. The idea that a surge of 20,000 American troops can or will rectify this situation is unhinged. For whom would they be fighting? A government run by Shiite death squads?

If that is true, then the only logical option for us is to withdraw - either to Kurdistan or altogether. It's encouraging to see a leading neoconservative acknowledge this profound, if depressing, reality. If Bush proposes a "surge" and Maliki is still prime minister, Charles will logically have to oppose the surge. And when Bush has lost Krauthammer, whom does he have left?

(Photo of Mahdi Army troops by Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty.)