The Big Gambit In Iraq

A skeptic would say that Bush has sacrificed the support of moderates at home -- the Republican as well as Democratic lawmakers voicing skepticism about his plan -- for some supposed "moderates" in Baghdad.

For this gamble to work, a lot of implausible things have to happen. Maliki's governing coalition, which includes the party of Moqtada al-Sadr, will have to steel itself to send troops into the neighborhoods controlled by Sadr's own Mahdi Army. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says this will happen, but the promise remains to be tested.

Also unproved is the capacity of the Iraqi army and police force, which are supposed to be "in the lead," with American troops in support, in clearing out Baghdad. The army was disbanded in a reckless decision soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and it is only now being slowly rebuilt. The police force is notoriously overrun with sectarian militias.

When Bush draws a picture of Iraqi army and police brigades going "door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents," he has to hope that those cops aren't regarded as assassins disguised in uniform when they go into Sunni neighborhoods.

And then there are those politicians in Baghdad -- the ones Bush is gambling can find consensus in a country that has known national unity only under a dictator.

Everyone acknowledges that there is no risk-free way of solving the mess in Iraq. Bush has chosen a way that guarantees what was forecast here just a month ago: "a foreign policy and national security debate as consequential as any this nation and its allies have faced since the start of World War II."

davidbroder@washpost.com