The president's 'new' 'plan'

To those of you who bought into the President's new plan, I think you ought to understand that it is premised on a very risky assumption.

We have been told that our success in this war depends on making Iraq safe, and the only way to do this is to send in more troops to take care of the Sunni militia and the Mahdi army. But the insurgency must be quelled by the Iraq army. What, however, happens if Maliki decides he would rather not try that? It becomes a failure.

What happens if he decides to try it, and the Mahdi army refuses to give up their arms, and fights back. We then have a family squabble that has become the civil war we are trying to avoid. That too is a failure.

Sometimes when you intervene in a family squabble, the participants make up and hate the interventionist.

Here is what I believe the Democrats in charge should do. If they honestly believe their own rhetoric then they cannot in all sincerity vote the funds for this "surge." They should spend the next week or two taking their case to the public. If they have a good case, and I believe they do, they can persuade the public that this is the sensible path.

If, as we are now told, that regime change was our objective - not the WMDs - then we have already achieved our goal. The Democrats may believe that opposing escalation is too risky politically, but being honest about one's objectives is very important. It shows the world true resolve. Taking a small loss is always a better choice than taking a disaster.

We owe it to our soldiers, sailors, air force, marines and even civilians who gave of themselves, the satisfaction that they did not do it in vain. The best way to do that is to keep their friends from also making the same sacrifice.