Opinion: “Not open-ended” -- U.S. involvement, or support to Maliki?
- Share via
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Our post-surge-speech editorial this morning describes as a ‘flicker of hope’ Bush’s ultimatum to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government. Excerpt:
The test of this strategy will be whether Maliki, who owes his position to Shiite support, understands that the U.S. will not take sides in an Iraqi civil war — and whether Bush means it when he says his commitment is not open-ended.
Reading between the lines of this news story from today, Plan B, should the test fail, is not to disengage from a civil war, but to find another Maliki:
Officials declined to say what the administration will do if Maliki does not deliver on his promises this time, or if Iraqi security forces fall short in their performance in the field. But one senior official suggested that if Maliki fails to stabilize Baghdad, the pressures of Iraq’s newly democratic political system could cost him his job. ‘If ... they disappoint the expectations of the Iraqi people and the American people, I think they’re going to have to deal with the Iraqi people before they have to deal with the American people,’ he said. Other officials have suggested that the United States could use its influence to force Maliki’s government to fall — by holding up millions of dollars in economic aid until a new leader was named, for example. But they emphasized that no decision had been made to follow that course. One option that Bush will not embrace, however, is an early U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, several officials said. ‘Simply coming home isn’t an option,’ said one, noting Bush’s conviction that withdrawing from Iraq would turn the country into what the president has called ‘a safe haven for terrorists.’