Democrats and Republicans are agonizing over their positions on the Iraq war. The polls indicate that a tsunami effect is expected, with the loss of 40 Republican seats in the House and enough in the Senate to shift control of both to the Democrats. However, I am sticking with my prediction that the Republicans will hold both houses, because the Republican base, made up of the Christian right and evangelicals, is—for ideological reasons—more committed to voting than the Democratic base. The Democrats should be running on the issues they do best—Social Security, comprehensive medical insurance, a woman’s right to choose, education, housing, fair taxation—rather than using Bush-bashing as an election platform.
A long time ago I urged the Democrats to come up with their version of the 1994 Republican “Contract With America.” That approach taken by Newt Gingrich for the Republicans, then the minority party, gave Republicans a great victory and made Gingrich Speaker of the House. Regrettably, the Democratic leadership has decided otherwise and Bush-bashing and the conduct of the Iraq War have become the Democrats’ main focus.
My position on that war is that we should announce that we will leave Iraq in six months unless our regional allies—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey (all Sunni nations) join us immediately with boots on the ground. A similar ultimatum should be given to our NATO allies, most of whom, led by France, have refused to commit troops to Iraq. When we leave, all of those nations will be compelled to support the government of Iraq because the existing civil war will escalate, as will the terrorist threat emanating from Iraq, and the number of Iraqi refugees will spiral out of control. NATO nations and others at the U.N. will be called upon for both humanitarian and security reasons to join in the rescue of the Iraqi civilian population from the ongoing horrendous civil war.
It being quite clear that the Bush administration has not accepted my proposal, I now propose that an ultimatum be given to Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki. The New York Times reported on October 21st, “Iraq is awash in killings, and many are blamed on the Mahdi Army, the militia commanded by a glowering Shiite cleric, Moktada al-Sadr. An indignant Mr. Sadr called his men to fight against the American military twice in 2004. It was bloodied, but survived. Since then the Mahdi Army, and a growing criminal breakaway element, have grown into one of the government’s biggest problems and are a major obstacle to the success of the American enterprise here. Despite its new rogue fringe, Iraqi Shiites see the Mahdi militia as their most effective protector against the hostile Sunni groups that have slaughtered Shiites and driven them from their homes. Shiites say that as long as the government cannot keep them safe, they cannot support the disarming of militias.”
Maliki was elected by Sadr whose party gave its votes to him. When the U.S. army recently captured one of his senior aides, whom the army believed was directing the death squads used to kill Sunni citizens of Baghdad, they were compelled to free him on the order of the prime minister. The Times reported, “But in a measure of just how complex Iraq has become, it is impossible to tell where loyalties to Mr. Sadr end and criminal activity begins. Rogue groups of his former followers now run underground fiefdoms of sectarian killing and kidnapping—and even a special market for victims’ cars. One of his senior aides was arrested by the American military earlier this week on suspicion of having directed the killing and torture of Sunnis. The Americans later reluctantly released him at the request of the Iraqi government.”
Every Iraq observer believes that the Sunni minority has to be brought into the Iraqi government in larger numbers and made to feel that the government is committed to stopping militia violence. Right now, it appears that the Shiite-dominated government is supporting the Shiite militia headed by Sadr.
If Prime Minister Maliki loses support from the U.S. government and the U.S. troops on the ground who are doing the fighting for the Iraqi army, he could not remain in power. CNN reports that solely for the month of October, as of October 23rd, American military casualties are 86 dead and 580 wounded. Maliki recently called President Bush to ask whether the U.S. President was seeking to unseat him and was assured to the contrary. That response should have been different. Maliki should be told that unless he accepts power-sharing with Sunnis and arrests Sadr and his terrorist minions, we will leave. The third ultimatum.
Under the U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. to maintain troops in Iraq, the U.S. has committed to leaving whenever Iraq’s government asks us to do so. The Iraqi government has continually and publicly stated that it wants the U.S. to stay. Why not, since our troops are dying in seeking to provide Iraqis with security and services, while the Iraqi army and police force are engaged in killing and torturing the Sunni population, all undoubtedly in revenge for what the Shia suffered when the Sunni supporters of Saddam Hussein were in charge.
While Iraq can ask us to leave, and we will go, we surely have the right to demand that the Iraqis take the measures needed for us to stay, including ending the Prime Minister’s support for the terrorist Shia militia and arresting militia members. Failing that, we should leave. An Iraqi government that will not act responsibly to stem the tide of violence does not deserve our support.
Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch can be heard every Friday at 6 p.m. on Bloomberg Radio.
