Democrats can?t come up with a formal unified stance on Iraq, but it?s all too clear what most of the party?s leaders want: out. And soon. It would be a disaster for America if they prevailed.
Iraq has finally installed a full government that is fighting to establish order against multiple homicidal enemies. Millions of ordinary Iraqis have risked death to vote ? a testament to their desire for democracy. Yet Democrats want to pull the plug and abandon them.
President Bush reported ? following his surprise visit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki this week ? that Iraq?s leaders are “deeply concerned that the stability provided by the coalition forces will be removed and there?ll be a vacuum. And they?re concerned about what gets into the vacuum.”
Bush said, “I assured them that we will keep our commitment” but added, “I also made it clear to them that in order for us to keep our commitment and be successful, they themselves have to do some hard things. They themselves have to set an agenda. They themselves have to get some things accomplished.”
Clearly, if there?s any hope for success in Iraq ? that is, the establishment of a stable, pro-Western democracy ? it depends principally on the Iraqis? ability to control sectarian strife, to cleanse the police and army of ethnic militias, to win the war against Saddamist insurgents and Islamic jihadists and to establish an effective, nationally representative government.
It?s a gigantic order, and it may prove impossible. Yet any prospect for success will vanish if Iraqis get the idea that the United States will withdraw its forces from the country before Iraqis can replace them.
Murderous thugs will fill the vacuum. Civil war certainly will ensue and the entire Gulf region will be destabilized.
True, as Democrats devoutly wish, Bush will go downas a failed president. But America also will suffer a catastrophic strategic defeat, probably resulting in domination of the region by a nuclear-armed Iran. It?s a future no Democratic presidential prospect should want to inherit.
Yet, Democratic leaders are falling all over themselves to hasten the process. They disagree about whether to set a deadline for withdrawal ? and, if so, what the deadline should be ? but the overwhelming consensus is for withdrawal, not commitment to victory.
Surely the most irresponsible positions are those taken by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and ex-hawk Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who want virtually immediate withdrawal, and by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and John Kerry, D-Mass., who advocate a full departure by the end of 2006.
If something like this suddenly became U.S. policy, one could expect the Iraqi government to collapse much as the South Vietnamese government did in April 1975, after Congress rejected President Gerald Ford?s appeal for emergency funds amid North Vietnam?s final offensive.
Next in line are those like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who told the left-wing “Take Back America” convention this week that “the American people are understandably confused and certainly frustrated” by Bush?s pledges to “stay the course” while U.S. military commanders leak word of gradual withdrawal plans.
Reid called for “a plan that provides our troops with an exit strategy from this seemingly endless conflict.” Reid?s policy, of course, would eliminate any confusion or frustration in the mind of the enemy and offer it a blueprint to plan its counter-strategy.
Reid and other senators are contemplating an amendment requiring a reduction of U.S. forces to 100,000 from the present 130,000 by the end of this year and full withdrawal by the end of 2007.
To her credit, the party?s 2008 frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., withstood boos and hisses from the Take Back lefties by saying it isn?t “smart strategy” or “in the best interests of our troops” to set a “date certain.”
On the other hand, she said it?s also not “smart” for “the president to continue with his open-ended commitment.” She did not say what strategy she favors ? something a prospective president ought to do.
Democratic leaders certainly are responding to the party?s rank-and-file. In the latest Gallup Poll, 24 percent of Democrats (and 17 percent of the total electorate) favor immediate withdrawal, and 47 percent (and 32 percent of all voters) want all U.S. troops out within 12 months.
In other words, 71 percent of Democrats favor either the Pelosi/Murtha or Kerry/Feingold position. Meanwhile, only 42 percent of all voters, including 64 percent of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats, support Bush?s stance of staying until Iraq is secure.
A minuscule 6 percent of voters support the position of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that the United States needs to send more troops.
A compelling case has been made by some hawkish intellectuals, including Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, that the United States should temporarily increase its forces for an offensive to help Iraqis clear and hold Baghdad and nearby insurgent strongholds.
Maliki is launching such an operation, but with only 75,000 mostly Iraqi military and police personnel. Kagan argues for adding 22,000 U.S. troops for the effort, believing that the Iraqis cannot handle it alone. He was one of four outside experts who briefed Bush and his Cabinet at Camp David prior to the president?s trip to Baghdad.
It would be wonderful if some Democratic presidential candidate would join McCain in pressing Bush to add troops to ensure a victory in Iraq. Once upon a time, the Democratic Party had genuine hawks, including Presidents Harry Truman, JohnF. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and Sens. Paul Douglas, Ill., and Henry Jackson, Wash.
Nowadays, the remnants of that wing, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, Conn., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., are lambasted by colleagues and risk the loss of their seats or committee posts.
Republicans plan to brand Democrats as “the party of cut and run” in the election this fall, but that?s not what the party should fear the most. Rather, it?s the prospect that the United States will be defeated in Iraq and a Democratic president will have to deal with the consequences.
Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.
