More typically, Charles Krauthammer closes yesterday’s op-ed with this trenchant observation: Given that the Maliki government “stands for Shiite unity and Shiite dominance above all else,” we

should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government. This governing coalition — Maliki’s Dawa, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Sadr’s Mahdi Army — seems intent on crushing the Sunnis at all costs. Maliki should be made to know that if he insists on having this sectarian war, he can well have it without us.

He’s right. If we’re gearing up to crush al Qaeda in Iraq and position ourselves to deal with the state sponsors of terror in Iran and Syria who jointly pose a true threat to American national security, that’s one thing. But that worthy goal would imply that we are not going to tolerate, much less permanently install, a Shiite-extremist Iran satellite in Baghdad. As far as that goes, Maliki is part of the problem.

Americans still support the global war on jihadists. President Bush needs to explain, compellingly, how his new strategy for Iraq — surge or no surge — advances our position in the wider war. If the plan is to invest more blood and treasure solely to prop up the current Iraqi regime, what’s in it for us?

Starting maybe with this: If, as is not unforeseeable, an overt military conflict were to break out between us and Iran, what would Maliki do?