Iraq

After last week's bombing of al-Askari mosque, a holy site for Shi'ite muslims in Samarra, Iraq, long-held animosities between the two islamic religious sects may have exploded into the forefront of Iraqi politics. Over 200 people have died in five days of violence, despit calls for calm from many Sunni and Shi'ite politicians and clerics.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this violence is the powerlessness of Iraqi security forces. A daytime curfew imposed on Friday proved to be a temporary roadblock to continued bloodshed, which merely continued after dark. This, combined with reports of the resurgence of Shi'ite militias such as the Mahdi Army, leaves many thinking that Iraqismay be unable to assume more control of their security situation. From CNN.com:

A former high-level Bush Administration official told Time that the violence may scuttle White House hopes of reducing troop levels this year. "It's unrealistic to think 2006 is a year of transition," he says. "What's holding things together and preventing this spark from turning into civil war is the presence of our troops in large numbers."

I have always been an ardent supporter of getting our troops out of Iraq, as long as Iraqis had demonstrated an ability to take over their own security responsibilities. Even before this crisis, that was in question. Now, I can't in all conscience recommend a troop pullout, at least not until the violence has subsided, and a new government is in place in Baghdad. That could mean weeks, if not months, of increased troop levels in Iraq. The alternative, however, is certainly worse. Again, from CNN:

"This was the worst-case scenario we all hoped would never happen," said a Western adviser to the Iraqi government. "We've always known that when the Shi'ites ran out of patience, Iraq would run out of political options."