I don't think that's a safe bet at all. Nobody took my Pennsylvania bet, so I'll offer a bet that President BHO, should that come to pass, will not bomb Sadr City. I'm more worried about Israel-style raids in Waziristan where the U.S. kills four innocents for the sake of maybe killing one maybe bad guy.
But natch I wouldn't support it if he (or anyone) did it.
...............
Bombing Sadr City, and similarly aggressive acts, will continue to be a part of the US' toolbox for as long as American forces remain in Iraq. Resistance will continue and efforts to crush it will also continue. "Israel-style raids" aren't enough for Washington which has many more toys at its disposal. The US isn't satisfied with deploying the methods of a mere client (which, in 2006, couldn't persist in its month-long bombing campaign of Lebanon without a refresh of ordinance from its patron).
If Sen. Obama becomes president, he will take his turn as manager of Washington's ME policy in the more directly severe form it has assumed post-Dubya. I imagine that his explanations will differ from his predecessors in some respects, but on-the-ground details will remain the same.
At this point, you may reply that the Senator has promised to withdraw US forces, thereby eliminating the problem. About this, John Thornton posted:
Obama states:
"It is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region."
How is an "active presence" as "a key player" not a murderous policy in this instance?
[...]
Which is exactly the right question. As I wrote at the top, the US will use its devastating arsenal for as long as the American presence endures. This means that actions which can rightly be described as war crimes are all but inevitable, regardless of who is president.
.d.