Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

This week marks the beginning of the Iraqi Civil War. The American mission in Iraq is over. We can either stay and fight everyone, pick sides, or leave. No choice open to America now will improve the situation on the ground.

The events kicked off by the Samarra bombing have now been book-ended by the attack on the mosque in Baghdad. We have entered the fray in a big way with the attack on the mosque. Images of the dead lying in a prayer room in the mosque and reports that the 80-year-old imam of the mosque has also been killed are being beamed continuously to everyone with a TV and electricity in Iraq. The American military’s protestations that the mosque was not entered will fall on deaf ears. We have no credibility there - not only because we are not trusted, but also because we have been unable or unwilling to stop the bloodletting there.

The ingredient missing from Iraq’s slide into civil war was mainstream outrage and anger and an embracing of the sectarian militias as the only guarantors of security. We have, perhaps unwittingly, provided the last piece of the puzzle and now the civil war picture is complete.

As sectarian violence spins out of control in Iraq, today The Washington Post reports that Moqtada al-Sadr’s compound was struck with two mortars. He was inside and survived injury.

 After the attack, al-Sadr released a statement with the obligatory call for calm. As translated by The Associated Press:

 "I call upon all brothers to stay calm and I call upon the Iraqi army to protect the pilgrims as the Nawasib (militants) are aiming to attack Shiites everyday," the statement said, according to the Associated Press. 

Or did he? The Post article points out:

 In the past two months, attacks on two Shiite targets — a Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra, and Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood, a stronghold of Sadr support — have unleashed the greatest sectarian bloodletting since U.S. forces overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003. Sadr issued similar appeals for calm after both attacks.

 However, Sadr’s thousands-strong Mahdi Army militia is accused by many U.S. officials and others in the violent retaliation to the mosque bombing and Sadr City attack.

 Al-Sadr uses the word "Nawasib" in his statement. It is a very loaded word and is code for inciting violence in otherwise benign statements. "Nawasib" is understood by the Shiite to mean "those who declared hostility against the household of the Prophet". It is an insult used to refer to Sunnis. It is not a word you would use when you are interested in reconciliation. It is a word you would use to incite hate and violence. To make the comparison more immediate, consider that there are similar words that racists use in the United States (and I will not repeat them here) when they are interested in hatemongering.

 The radicals use our ignorance of their culture against us. They are very adept at playing the Bush Administration for full advantage, on the one hand, getting material support as the "good" guys in the Green Zone, and on the other hand, using that "material support" to kill innocents while we are patting ourselves on the back for teaching these people about democracy.

 Hate always has many names. In Iraq, Hate sometimes likes to call itself "Nawasib".

Charles Krauthammer cheerfully declares "Of Course It’s a Civil War" in his latest op-ed for The Washington Post. Now here’s a true red meat conservative. He not only faces reality head-on, but he embraces it and relishes it. He wants blood. Lots and lots of blood. As long as it is Iraqi blood:

Now all of a sudden everyone is shocked to find Iraqis going after Iraqis. But is it not our entire counterinsurgency strategy to get Iraqis who believe in the new Iraq to fight Iraqis who want to restore Baathism or impose Taliban-like rule? Does not everyone who wishes us well support the strategy of standing up the Iraqis so we can stand down? And does that not mean getting the Iraqis to fight the civil war themselves?

Hence the gradual transfer of war-making responsibility. Hence the decline of American casualties. Hence the rise of Iraqi casualties.

He looks on the bright side. Civil wars do not last forever. In the meantime, it is a great spectacle to watch. Besides, if you kill enough Sunnis, they will come to the peace table:

Civil wars are not eternal. This war will end not with an Appomattox instrument of surrender. It will end when a critical mass of Sunnis stops supporting the insurgency and throws its lot in with the new Iraq.

How does this happen? The stick is military — the increased cost in Sunni blood of continuing the fight. But the carrot is political — a place at the table for those Sunnis, some of whom are represented in parliament, who are prepared to abandon the insurgency for a share of power, a share of oil income, and a sense of security and dignity in the new Iraq.

The good news here is that if we get the Iraqi Shiites to slaughter the Iraqi Sunni into submission, it will be cheaper for us in the long run. It will certainly not be as expensive as a Vietnam-style "bomb you into submission" plan. Smart bombs are much more expensive than Iraqi lives.

We should all cheer this op-ed by Krauthammer. Consider it a stalking-horse from our war making friends. Finally, we have a clearly defined exit strategy that the public can get behind. No more code like "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down". Charles tells us the unvarnished truth - "As the Iraqis are strung up, we will stand down". For your honesty, thank you, Charles Krauthammer.