Mort Kondracke Endorses Hillary's Plan For Ethnic Cleansing

I stumbled upon this at Hotair earlier today, and found it interesting that it took so long for someone to openly endorse Hillary's Iraq policy should she be president.

Real Clear Politics:

Without prejudging whether President Bush's "surge" policy will work, the administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the "80 percent solution" - also known as "winning dirty."

The "winning dirty" strategy is to allow the 80% majority Shiites and Kurds to suppress the Sunnis.

Kondracke goes on to make a blunder in his piece that I don't think anyone else has caught yet.

No one has publicly advocated this Plan B.

Wrong! In fact a 2008 presidential candidate HAS endorsed allowing ethnic cleansing in Iraq as their strategy ... Hillary. Now Hillary has tried to hide her position on allowing ethnic cleansing ... most recently at the Democrat debates.

Kondracke then goes on about there being a civil war in Iraq, and I won't waste too much of my time further destroying that nonsense again. It is impossible to have a civil war with only 10-20% of the country fighting it. That is gang warfare ... not a civil war.

He goes on to say of the surge:

The new strategy deserves a chance, but so far civilian casualties are not down, progress on political reconciliation is glacial, and U.S. casualties have increased significantly.

Kondracke strikes out again. Clearly civilian casualties are down since the surge started ... as I wrote here, and Iraqi civilian casualties have been declining since February of this year (according to news reports). US troop casualties are also down from the average last month. Of course, our troop casualties have fluctuated every couple of months since the insurgency started in 2004, but US troop deaths have declined annually every years since the start of the insurgency. None of these truths made it into the column, and I doubt he knows anything about Operation Arrowhead.