Nicholas D. Kristof, with whom I don’t always agree, offers the most concise and pointed response in his New York Times column today to the pro-surge crowd’s contention that leaving with result in a bloodbath.
His argument can be boiled down to this:
1. The Iraqis don’t support the surge and want us to leave.
2. Our presence maybe impeding a political settlement, meaning that the bloodbath maybe more likely to happen with us there.
3. We can minimize the potential for a bloodbath by reminding the Iraqi government that, should large-scale massacres occur, government officials will be prosecuted for war crimes.
4. We can create stability by bringing the regional powers — including Iran and Syria — to the table.
So at the end of the day, genocide is possible in Iraq, but there’s no crystal ball to tell anyone what will happen if we stay or go. Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy.
A majority of Iraqis may well be right in thinking that we are part of the problem rather than the solution — and maybe a phased withdrawal will nudge Iraqis back from the brink and make a cataclysm less likely.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
Hank Kalet 