Iraq again

Normally I don't agree with Charles Krauthammer, he's way too conservative for my tastes. But his column in the Post makes a great deal of sense.

I really agree with what he says here:

The administration view -- its hope -- is that, whatever Maliki's instincts, he can be forced to act in good faith by the prospect of the calamity that will befall him if he lets us down and we carry out our threat to leave. The problem with this logic is that it is contradicted by the president's simultaneous pledge not to leave "before the job is done."

Krauthammer argues that there needs to be developed another plan. (Yes that is asking the administration a great deal when it can barely come up with one plan about Iraq to have to come up with two) A fall back position if the surge doesn't work. Why would Iraqis step up and help with this plan when they know the Americans will just stay no matter what the Iraqis do. There needs to be a Plan B to be able to say to Maliki: You didn't help us. You didn't fulfill your promises. So now were not going to protect Baghdad any more. There needs to a stick to reinforce the carrot or else the surge is not going to work at all.