Earlier today, I took issue with Charles Krauthammer’s view that the U.S. should not take a lead role in the fighting if, after the January elections, all-out civil war breaks out in Iraq. The basis for my view is essentially that expressed here, after Krauthammer first made this argument in April.
There are outcomes in Iraq short of the single, peaceful democratic state we’ve been attempting to create that we might be well-advised to settle for in a worst case scenario. But these outcomes do not include a Sunni triangle dominated by Baathists and/or terrorists, along the lines of the Fallujah of a few weeks ago. Such a Sunni triangle would represent essentially a hybrid of Saddam’s Iraq (WMD capability) and the Taliban’s Afghanistan (a base for al Qaeda style terrorists). We have not lost 1.000 plus American lives to settle for that.
Most Read on Power Line
- The Week in Pictures: Crimea River Edition
- More Proof That Liberals Are Humorless Losers
- Exclusive to Power Line: Koch Industries Responds to New York Times Smears
- Latest News on the Climate Change Collapse
- Rand Paul: Did an Old Prejudice Rear Its Head In His CPAC Speech?
- Poll contains good news and bad news for Democrats [With Comment on Hillary By John]
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell