Informed Speculation

That’s the implicit message in this David Ignatius piece.  Ignatius is blistering on the subject of Iraq and the NIE, so it may sound odd for a Bush supporter to recommend the article, but he correctly focuses on the bigger picture:

Here’s a reality check for the Democrats: There is not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequences for America and its allies. Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it “strategic redeployment” or something else.

I wish Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) were asking this question: How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? Many critics of the war would argue that the worst has already happened — Iraq has unraveled. Unfortunately, as bad as things are, they could get considerably worse. Following a rapid American pullout, Iraq could descend into a full-blown civil war, with Sunni-Shiite violence spreading throughout the region. In this chaos, oil supplies could be threatened, sending prices well above $100 a barrel. Turkey, Iran and Jordan would intervene to protect their interests. James Fallows titled his collection of prescient essays warning about the Iraq war “Blind Into Baghdad.” We shouldn’t compound the error by being “blind out of Baghdad,” too.

The Democrat who has tried hardest to think through these problems is Sen. Joseph Biden. He argues that the current government of national unity isn’t succeeding in holding Iraq together and that America should instead embrace a policy of “federalism plus” that will devolve power to the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. Iraqis are already voting for sectarian solutions, Biden argues, and America won’t stabilize Iraq unless it aligns its policy with this reality. I disagree with some of the senator’s conclusions, but he’s asking the right question: How do we fix Iraq?

America needs to reckon with the message of the National Intelligence Estimate. Iraq has compounded Muslim rage and created a dangerous crisis for the United States. The Democrats understandably want to treat Iraq as George Bush’s war and wash their hands of it. But the damage of Iraq can be mitigated only if it again becomes the nation’s war — with the whole country invested in finding a way out of the morass that doesn’t leave us permanently in greater peril. If the Democrats could lead that kind of debate about security, they would become the nation’s governing party. But what you hear from most Democrats these days is: Gotcha.

The question I ask in the title of this post is aimed at Republicans as well as Democrats.  I can only answer for me, but the answer is, yes.  Yes, I do.  So much so that if the Democrats took Iraq seriously and presented a plausible victory strategy, I would consider holding my nose and voting for them.  I hear the exact opposite, though; Charles Rangel, who would be Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in a Democratic House, openly says that killing funding for the war and pulling out the troops is his #1 priority.

What about winning, Charlie? In ANY engagement involving American troops, isn’t that our #1 priority?  Because I’ll tell you right now, I’m an American before I’m a Republican.  If Hillary Clinton were running against Chuck Hagel, I would vote for Hillary.  No hesitation.  If Joe Biden or Joe Lieberman were running against any Republican who advocated withdrawal as our top priority, same story.

The question is not, “How soon can we abandon Iraq?” The question is, “How quickly can we stabilize the country, strengthen its nascent institutions, and leave its army and police prepared and motivated to carry on so we can bring our boys and girls home victorious?”…