Shrine Attacks and the Definition of Insanity

Today's attack on one of the holiest shrines in Baghdad underscores a transition in my understanding of US policy in Iraq in general -- What was once merely misguided is now teetering on the brink of insanity.

The definition of insanity is repetition of the same action over and over with the expectation of different results. Today, after the shrine was bombed, General Petraeus said on ABC that he was optimistic, and that Iraq's leadership had done the right thing in universally condemning the attacks and calling for calm.

Is this some sort of new step? Was there a time at which Maliki's government was not condeming terrorism and not calling for calm? I hardly think so. So, Petraeus should not claim optimism in the face of renewed tactics that have proven ineffective in the past. Ineffective at least in the sense that today's attack was part of the result. Calling for calm and condemnation, sad to say, just doesn't mean anything to terrorists. And the regular people of Iraq have no reason to believe those calls will be effective, since we have shown no ability to enforce that calm.

Petraeus also claimed that the attacks today were the work of Al Qaeda. Maybe he's right, maybe not. But whether they were or not is immaterial, because either way it's bad news. I'm not even sure which would be worse: Either our forces are so ineffective against Al Qaeda that they were able to carry out a major attack against a known target in the center of the city which is the lynchpin of this entire conflict, or a homegrown terrorist cell is operating within the context of the greater civil war happening there. Wow, what a shitty set of options.

If we examine this in the context of our options going forward, we see that the result is the same in either case. Let's say it was Al Qaeda. They are doing this to stir up the ethnic hatreds that fuel the civil war, to make our situation there more untenable. The silver lining is that in doing so, Al Qaeda is itself stirring up the ire of the Iraqis, which means that when we leave, Al Qaeda is likely to find no firm purchase for recruiting or other operations.

If it wasn't Al Qaeda, then it is clear that the civil war is escalating, and it is equally clear that when we leave, things are going to get a lot worse, and in a hurry. What we must have the courage to face is that this is going to happen no matter when we leave, whether tomorrow of fifty years from now. This conflict has been going on for hundreds of years, so waiting even fifty years for us to leave means nothing to the Sunni or Shia.

Either way, this is yet another sign that it is time to get out -- Immediately. A failure to do so at this point, and insistence on the same optimism and impotent calls for a truce that have led us to this point, is a textbook case of insanity.