And now from the other side...

I was wondering around the blogosphere when I came across a posting on Vodkapundit's page (www.vodkapundit.com). He sees the civil war coming in Iraq, but unlike myself he's got a completely different game plan:

"And let's get some other things clear. If there is a civil war, we need to do three things.
•We need to choose a side right the now, and stick to it until the bloody end.
•We need to increase our troop strength in-theater ASAP, so that the bloody end comes sooner rather than later.
•And we absolutely need to hold accountable those most responsible for things getting this far out of control – Donald Rumsfeld (for his idiotic ideas about low troop-levels), and the Mullahs in Tehran who have been fostering this civil war since long before we invaded."

This isn't a pick up game on your local basketball court. We can't just pick a side in this conflict, either one we choose is going to hate our guts, and we'll alienate the rest of the Middle East even more than we already have (and trust me, that's alot). From there the next point falls. Raising troop levels now would be a disaster politically and unless you want a civil war here it ain't happening. I'm down with point number three, but how the hell are we going to hold the Mullahs responsible besides having Scott McClellan shout harsh rhetoric at them? Surely we won't be going to war with them, especially without a Saddam Hussein over there to give biological weapons so he can act as out de facto general. (Oh mah bad, I forgot Big Brother wanted that deleted from our record). What Vodka's recommending is still more of the same of what's been coming out of administrationtion, and more of the same will only give us more of the same.

Then again it seems that he shares the same type of conservative callousness and arrogance that landed us here in the first place:

"If we're looking at an Islamic civil war, then vast numbers of good people will die, from Libya to Oman. Luckily, they won't have to be our people. In the very worst-case scenario, the Middle East could blow up – and we could bug out, pronto. "This is the good news?" you ask. Yes, and I'll explain why.
Christianity was a violent religion until the Thirty Years War. That war lasted so long, and killed so many people (the population of Germany was reduced by a third), that Christendom lost its bloodlust. Freedom of conscience was born on the battlefields of central Europe. The Middle East hasn't suffered that kind of loss; they haven't yet had their fill of blood; they haven't yet become disgusted with tyranny. I'd like to think that the Middle East can do what the West did, without all the suffering. But if it takes regional fratricide, then so be it."

So after instigating the problem the best we can do is let them commit years of genocide and wash our hands like Pontius Pliate, hoping once again, when the smoke clears, they'll be like us. Yeah that'll work, and likewise it's very moral and Christian. Sounds to me like "Freedom of Conscience" died in the delivery room. And that last quote reminds me of Madeline Albright's infamous "that's the price we're willing to pay," comment when asked about the 1 million or so Iraqis that died from our embargo under the Clinton administration. (If you remember the Islamic world got sorta pissed off about that one). If you think that them killing each other will reduce anti-American sentiment over there, you have another thing coming.

Sadly I'm positive that this is the rhetoric that's going on right now in the White House. But with Bush's track record of only listening to people who agree with his points I'm sure that debate has been left out in the cold.