Peter Krupa

The common assumption these days is that the Democrats swept to victory because Americans want out of Iraq. Assuming that’s true, and that Democrats - as their name would imply - will rush to do the will of the majority, what does this realistically mean for Iraq? The New Yorker offers a chilling prediction:

The argument that Iraq would be better off on its own is a self-serving illusion that seems to offer Americans a win-win solution to a lose-lose problem. Like so much about this war, it has more to do with politics here than reality there. Such wishful thinking (reminiscent of the sweets-and-flowers variety that preceded the war) would have pernicious consequences, as the United States fails to anticipate one disaster after another in the wake of its departure: ethnic cleansing on a large scale, refugees pouring across Iraq’s borders, incursions by neighboring armies, and the slaughter of Iraqis who had joined the American project.

As bad as invading Iraq may have been, I can’t help but think that leaving it to plunge itself into genocide would probably be worse. Unfortunately, as a party, and as they’ve demonstrated with their shifting positions on the Iraq war, Democrats, rather than leading us anywhere, can primarily be relied upon to echo disgruntledness. And so even if it is a matter of choosing genocide, they might be willing to yank the rug out from under Iraq, and to hell with it all.

This wouldn’t be very liberal, or humanitarian. But unfortunately, it might be popular.