The new phrase of the day being bandied about in discussions of Iraq is “phased redeployment.” This is a term that originated with some of the Democrats, victorious in the election, and has been picked up by many other people. The incoming Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, on television last Sunday, said, “we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months.”

Now in the normal meaning of the word, redeployment means that you move troops that are in position A in Iraq to position B also within that country. However, that’s not what Senator Levin and other critics of President Bush have in mind. They would distort and twist the word “redeployment” using it as a euphemism for withdrawing troops. In other words for cutting and running from Iraq. With this fancy word and a time period, they hope to be presenting a fig leaf for America’s withdrawal. I doubt whether the President will go along with these critics. And he’s absolutely right.

Let’s take a step back and review the bidding, as they say at the bridge table. We became involved in Iraq in an effort, which was successful to depose the villainous thug who was terrorizing the majority of his own people and threatening neighbors. Well Saddam Hussein is gone. Chaos has followed in his wake. To be sure, we have not done a good job of managing the post Saddam period. Disbanding the Iraqi army, most considered to have been a mistake. But it was made. We can’t put it back together. The question is what do we do from here.

We can’t simply write off Iraq because it’s located in the Middle East which is the source of most of our oil. If anyone has any doubts about the significance of that oil, and its impact on the American economy, then the experience of the last couple of months should persuade them. When the price of oil recently tumbled from $78 a barrel to $58, the American economy lit up like the sky on the Fourth of July. The stock market has been soaring. People are spending money. Corporate profits are up. Now, step back for a moment and think about what would happen to the American economy if gasoline shot up to $5 or $6 or even $10 a gallon. Make no mistake, that’s precisely what would happen with chaos in the Middle East. We can’t afford that, and we have to do our best to stabilize not just Iraq, but the region as a whole.

Oddly enough, the violence in Iraq is not aimed at the United States as occupier. This is another round in a bitter internal war within Islam between Sunnis and Shiites. For centuries, these two groups have hated each other and have manifested that hatred with violence and killings.

Throughout the twentieth century, the Sunnis had the upper hand in Arab countries. They were the ones who wielded the power. They controlled Arab governments. They were the upper classes. They kept the Shiites in a lower status. All that began to change with the creation of the Islamic republic in Iran, which, while Persian and not Arabic, was an entirely Shiite country. Suddenly, Shiites began to realize that they could take control of their country. With Iranian funding and arms, the Shiite movement in Lebanon, where the Shiites are a minority, reared its head in the form of Hezbollah, wrecking the delicate balance that had been created to govern that country after the Syrian withdrawal. In Iraq, Shiites are a majority with approximately 60% of the population, but the Sunnis, while only 20%, ruled under Saddam Hussein and terrorized the Shiites.

If we implement “phased redeployment” before there is stability in Iraq, the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites will escalate, and our credibility around the world will be weakened. There is a good chance that the intra Islamic warfare will spread to other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia. How can anyone believe that is better than the current situation.