NOT IN CHARGE

George Bush (knocking the French fondness for socialism):
"The French have no word for 'entrepreneur'."

Another Bushism: "I know how hard it is to put food on
your family." (He doesn't)

Nor is he the "decider" in Iraq. Events and Iraqis are. As
Michael Mandelbaum has said: "Right now, the U. S. is
the passenger in a car that other countries are driving ---
and it is not going in the right direction." But even though
George isn't steering, he's still riding the accelerator!

"Today in Iraq, none of the key parties have to make any
choices, and we don't have any choices. That is the
definition of 'stuck'." So writes Tom Friedman in
yesterday's N. Y. Times. He goes on to say: "Right now
we can win only if all the parties in and around Iraq act
in the most farsighted and flexible manner. Otherwise
we lose in our attempt to democratize Iraq, and we're left
holding the bag. . .".

The success of the "surge" will depend on Mr. Maliki.
Edward Luttwak (N. Y. Times, 2/6/07) writes that:
"Mr. Maliki, it seems, simply agreed to whatever was
asked of him, to humor the White House and retain
American support for a little while longer. For the
Iraqi Army and police to disarm the Shiite militias,
the prime minister would have to be a veritable
Stalin or at least a Saddam Hussein, able to
terrorize Iraqi soldiers and policemen into
obedience. Mr. Maliki, of course, has no such
authority over Iraqi soldiers or police officers;
indeed he has little authority over his own 39
person cabinet, whose members mostly
represent sectarian parties with militias of their
own."

As far as being a reconciler, Luttwak writes of
Maliki: "Nor can the Iraqi leader fulfill his other
major promise: leading a new effort to reconcile
the warring sects of Iraq. He is not another
Gandhi, but a leader of the fiercely sectarian
Dawa Party. It is very much as a militant Shiite
that he speaks out; lately he has been threatening
Sunni members of parliament and accusing them
of grave crimes. . . It would be remarkable if Mr.
Maliki could even reconcile with his Shiite
rivals, let alone the Sunni insurgents."

Both Friedman and Luttwak say we should disengage
in Iraq. The latter writes: "The total number of
American troops in Iraq --- even including any
surge --- is so small, and their linguistic skills so
limited, that they have little effect on day to day
security. Nor have they really protected Iraqis from
one another. . . Intelligence is to counterinsurgency
what firepower is to conventional warfare, and we
just do not have it or the capacity to gather information
on our own. Thus the sacrifices of our troops on
the ground are mostly futile."

While we must pray for the success of this surge
if it can't be stopped here at home, and we pray
for the safety of our heroic forces, we must be
aware that the President is gambling with their
lives despite the extremely unpromising odds.

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net