Long time reader, first time commenter...

I'm sympathetic to the surge because I think the #1 priority is to STOP THE KILLING in Iraq, and the surge has at least a chance of doing that. Whether the chance is good enough to justify the risk is a tough call. But if a few thousand more troops could clear, hold, and build in Baghdad, and give the Maliki government room to establish control and the economy room to grow; and if people no longer felt dependent on the militias for security from terrorists and other militias, thus allowing the cycle of violence to stop, it could be a really good thing.

I understand that it would be in American interests to let the Shiites dominate the country. You'd spook Syria and Saudi Arabia, Iran/Iraq and the Sunni dictatorships would fear each other more than us... Good things. But you pay a high price for that in terms of... well, isn't it called "ethnic cleansing"... in the Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad.

Doesn't your opposition to the surge, and your championiship, basically amount to an endorsement of ethnic cleansing? And yes, some Sunnis either engaged in or materially supported Baathism or anti-Shia terrorism, but there are surely a lot of perfectly innocent Sunnis who will get victimized too, aren't there?

I admire your blog, and in general, no one has a shrewder (or more enjoyable) take on current events. But I'm not sure what to make of your position on this one...

Yes, Iraq needs to be cleansed of those who won't live under Shi'a rule just as we cleansed post-Revolutionary America of Royallists and the South of Confederates.

The "surge" kills more birds than a sack of stones laced with DDT. With a little luck, it will drive most of the Sunni insurgents out of Baghdad, discipline Sadr and the controllable elements of his militia (while killing or capturing the uncontrollable elements ... with Sadr's help), and strengthen Malaki's hand. It will also help McCain immeasurably and set the Dems up for big-time fall.

In fact, the mere the threat of a surge may prove sufficient. The Great Haifa Street Turkey Shoot has recently demonstrated the lethality of a rather small American force working in tandem with the best Iraqi army units. Neither the Sunni insurgents nor the Shia militia have missed that message.

Interestingly, the Saudis seem to be totally on board with us. Something has happened within the royal family.

"just as we cleansed... and the South of Confederates."

huh?

No one has been better at ruthlessly repressing rambunctious cohorts of the population than us. We exterminated the natives, tossed the Royalists, crushed rebels, rounded up Germans in WWI and Japanese in WWII. The Shi'a just aren't as good at this stuff as we.

To OJ's point Bush's attempt to play nice in Iraq to appease the Dems and others came back to haunt him. Time to take off the gloves, get the job done, and bring the troops home (via Syria).

No matter how many times OJ claims that the imposition of sharia by a religious faction that doesn't believe in any separation of church and state is somehow just like the American revolution, I can still think of a few differences. You know: obscure, unimportant, Bill of Rights sort of things.

It's the imposition of democracy the Loyalists, Confederates, and Sunni object to.