Krauthammer on What to do next in IraqMike Rappaport

Charles Krauthammer continues to pursue the logic of his belief (and mine) that the main problem now in Iraq is that the Maliki government does not seem willing to promote the national interest, but only the narrow Shia agenda:

His government is hopelessly sectarian. It protects Sadr, as we sawdramatically when Maliki ordered the lifting of U.S. barricades set uparound Sadr City in search of a notorious death squad leader. It isenmeshed with Iran, as we saw when Maliki s government forced us torelease Iranian agents found in the compound of one of his coalitionpartners.

The administration view its hope is that, whatever Maliki sinstincts, he can be forced to act in good faith by the prospect of thecalamity that will befall him if he lets us down and we carry out ourthreat to leave. The problem with this logic is that it is contradictedby the president s simultaneous pledge not to leave before the job isdone.

In this high-stakes game of chess, what is missing issome intermediate move on our part some Plan B that Maliki believesBush might actually carry out the threat of which will induce him tofully support us in this battle for Baghdad.

We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latentAmerican strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say toMaliki: you let us down and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad,and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certainstrategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces toKurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province wherewe are having success in our one-front war against al Qaeda and theBaathists. Then we watch. You can have your Baghdad civil war withoutus. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can.