Moreover, the Shia leadership -- which represents 60% of the population and reasonably hopes to govern an undivided representative country -- is strongly motivated to not let Iraq slip into civil war. And, while some Kurds dream of sovereign autonomy, a very large percentage of their leadership remain committed to an undivided Iraq (albeit with substantial Kurdish autonomy short of sovereignty.)
And, while there is substantial disillusion with America's ability to impose order and infrastructure rebuilding, it would appear that a high percentage of Iraqi's (including many Sunni) recognize that this is their one chance at gaining a normal, eventually peaceful and prosperous nation. It is a mistake to assume that most Iraqis primarily identify themselves by religion or tribe. In fact, there is a well developed sense of nationalism (partially a result, ironically, of Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny.) Nationalism tends to be a unifying, not a dividing, instinct.
How much time we have before the current insurrectionary activity infects a sufficient part of the population as to tip Iraq into civil war is not objectively knowable.
It is a certainty, though, that the current level of insurrection wherein whole cities are "no-go" territory for even heavily armored American troops, is not compatible with a successful outcome in Iraq, and almost certainly will eventually tip Iraq into irredeemable chaos. We know, also, that every day the source of the infection is not cleaned out, it continues to spread at some rate.
So I return to the question posed at the beginning of the column. Is our government letting the American election date effect its judgment about when (if at all) to take direct military action to end "no-go" areas and put down the insurrectionist strongholds?
I don't know the answer, so I don't presume to make such an allegation. But I do presume to earnestly advice our government's war leaders to dismiss such a factor -- if it exists -- from their calculations.
Morally, they are obliged to fight this war in the most efficacious manner -- irrespective of electoral consequences. And, at a practical -- even cynical -- level, it is not likely to adversely affect the election results.
The American people are poised to re-elect the President because they believe, as I do, that he will continue to prosecute this war with all the vigor he has so far demonstrated. Further evidence of that leadership will be all to the good.
Tony Blankley
Tony Blankley, a conservative author and commentator who served as press secretary to Newt Gingrich during the 1990s, when Republicans took control of Congress, died Sunday January 8, 2012. He was 63.
Blankley, who had been suffering from stomach cancer, died Saturday night at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, his wife, Lynda Davis, said Sunday.
In his long career as a political operative and pundit, his most visible role was as a spokesman for and adviser to Gingrich from 1990 to 1997. Gingrich became House Speaker when Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives following the 1994 midterm elections.
©Creators Syndicate