Today while the President was saying he is not satisfied with the situation in Iraq and that a change of tactics are forthcoming, Nouri al-Maliki voiced dissatisfaction with a US raid on Sadr City:
In Baghdad, the Iraqi leader took a hard slap at the United States for a raid by U.S. and Iraqi forces on the stronghold of a Shiite militia led by a radical anti-American cleric on whom Al-Maliki relies for political support. Al-Maliki said the raid "will not be repeated."
Al-Maliki also criticized the top U.S. military and diplomatic representatives in Iraq for saying his government needed to set a timetable to curb violence in the country. "I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it," he said.
So, what should the United States do next? Over at Frontpagemag.com, Daniel Pipes offers an alternative strategy for Iraq. He says that we should let the Iraqis handle their own security while we withdraw to the desert, maintain territorial security, and keep the oil flowing. He also points out that we should stop building the biggest embassy in the history of mankind which we have already poured a billion dollars into. He concludes with this statement:
The idea has developed since World War II that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. This "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption is wrong and needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, there are times and places where rehabilitation is appropriate, but this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, keeping feasibility and American interests strictly in mind. Iraq – an endemically violent country – fails on both counts.If we hear much more of this kind of talk from al-Maliki, Daniel Pipes will look prescient.