39 Voices Become A Full Chorus On Iraq

It's a day for piling on the phased-withdrawal bandwagon, it seems. David Broder in the WaPo reminds us that only 39 senators got it correct in a vote earlier this year. The rest put personal power before the interests of those they were elected to work for. The subject of that vote is still alive - what to do about Iraq - and according to long-time Armed Services Committe members Levin and Reed is still Democrat policy:

On Iraq, the two Democrats harked back to the amendment that 39 senators supported during a debate earlier this year -- an amendment that called for a start on U.S. troop withdrawals within six months but set no numbers and specified no target date for ending the U.S. military presence.

Reed, who has made many trips to Iraq and returned just weeks ago from his most recent visit, described the "very, very difficult situation" he found there. "We have to begin to work toward redeployment without setting a timetable," he said. "We have to start laying out some red lines for the Iraqis . . . give them some clear goals we want them to achieve." They need to set plans for disarming militias, conducting elections at the provincial level and spending some of the funds being hoarded in Baghdad on better services for the people, he said.

Implicit in their comments is a belief, based on their firsthand observations, that the current rulers in Baghdad have a different agenda for themselves than the Bush administration's bland assurances suggest. As Levin put it, "Our only leverage for change is to force the politicians in Iraq to realize we're not there as their security blanket. When they recognize that reality, they're more likely to make the necessary compromises on sharing of oil revenues and sharing power. The prospect of losing us as their personal security blanket will focus their minds."

Reed agreed that unless something is done to change course, three separate violent struggles going on in Iraq (Sunnis vs. Shiites; Shiite factions fighting each other; Sunni insurgents fighting Americans) will probably merge into one massive calamity.

It's almost certain that James Baker's commission will echo Dem policy in it's recomendations and for similiar reasons - a growing consensus in the U.S. that Iraqi politicians and power-brokers must be given both carrot and stick. George Will writes today about four questions the commission might ask but given how well connected Will is, I think he knows they already are asking. The first two are:

· What are 140,000 U.S. forces achieving in Iraq that could not be achieved by 40,000?


· If the answer to the first question is "creating Iraqi security forces," a second question is: Is there an Iraqi government? In "State of Denial," Bob Woodward quotes Colin Powell, after leaving the administration, telling the president that strengthening Iraq's military and police forces is crucial but that "if you don't have a government that you can connect these forces to, then, Mr. President, you're not building up forces, you're building up militias." And making matters worse.

Then there's the U.N. and America's allies. Jim Hoagland notes:

The Baker group's political recommendations in late autumn will roughly coincide with the rollout of a U.N.-sponsored International Compact for Iraq that would offer new reconstruction aid and debt relief if Maliki undertakes substantial economic reforms. In the view of international officials, new laws on oil exploration, production and revenue sharing are urgent and central to the reforms and to national reconciliation efforts.

But military leaders and diplomats in Western capitals are not waiting for the Baker and U.N.-sponsored efforts to conclude before they assess the mistakes, poor strategy and changing conditions of warfare that have brought U.S. forces face to face with the bitter prospect of having to withdraw, mission unaccomplished.

And the very last onto the phased-withdrawal bandwagon, according to the New York Times today, will be the Bush administration:

The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.

Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.

Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.

A senior Pentagon official involved in drafting the blueprint said Iraqi officials were being consulted as the plan evolved and would be invited to sign off on the milestones before the end of the year. But he added, “If the Iraqis fail to come back to us on this, we would have to conduct a reassessment” of the American strategy in Iraq.

The cynical among us realize, though, that the new name of the game now that "cut-and-run" has become the flavor of the month will be to ensure that no-one in the Bush administration has to admit their own personal "arrogance" and "stupidity" in staying the failing course for so long and making sure that the Republican base can at least have some plausible means of telling itself that Dear Leader hasn't flip-flopped.