Column

Best of bad options: orderly Iraq exit

By PHILIP GAILEY
Published September 9, 2007

One of the darkest days in the nation's history brought out the best in Americans and the worst in their political leaders.

After terrorists rammed hijacked airliners into the symbols of American military and financial might on a clear September morning in 2001, we came together as a nation under attack and rallied behind our president. The civilized world offered comfort and support. In the aftermath of 9/11, America was at its best, but it was not to last.

Today, six years later, we are left to wonder what might have been if President Bush, with the approval of Congress, had not recklessly veered off course and taken us into a disastrous and unnecessary war in Iraq that has torn the nation apart, given terrorists a rallying point and squandered America's moral authority in the world. Everything good that came out of 9/11 is gone, it seems.

This week, amid memorial services in New York and Washington marking the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Congress opens another round in the debate over when and how to extract U.S. forces from Iraq, where more than 3,700 Americans have died so far. The week's headliner is Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq who will deliver a much-anticipated progress report on the war to Congress. It's hard to imagine anything the general could say that would justify continuing the president's policy or the investment of more American blood.

The debate President Bush wants is over. Gen. Petraeus and other U.S. military leaders already are on record saying there is no military solution to the sectarian violence in Iraq and that political reconciliation among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds is the only way forward. It should be clear by now that the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is not interested in national reconciliation.

There are only bad choices to be made, and we might as well make one that leads to an orderly and strategic U.S. withdrawal, which could take as long as two years to complete even if we started now. It's time to point the troop surge toward the exit door and stop deluding ourselves that more time and patience will change the outcome.

We don't need to hear Gen. Petraeus talk about a few tactical successes or pockets of progress. The larger picture in Iraq is overwhelmingly grim.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last month that unless Iraqis achieve political unity, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference." He also warned that the United States risked breaking the Army if the Pentagon decided to maintain the present troop level in Iraq beyond next spring.

Last week's report by a commission of retired senior U.S. military officers said that Iraq's army, despite some progress, will be unable to take over internal security from U.S. forces in the next 12 to 18 months. The report also said that the 25,000-member Iraqi national police force is "dysfunctional" and so riddled with sectarianism and corruption that it should be disbanded.

And the latest National Intelligence Estimate, the consensus view of all U.S. intelligence agencies, said the modest military gains achieved by the troop surge will mean little or nothing "unless there is a fundamental shift in the factors driving Iraqi political and security developments."

This latest round in the Iraq debate in Washington should begin with a recognition that President Bush no longer has any credibility on the subject. He first justified the war by claiming Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. None were found. Then the war was about establishing a model democracy in the Arab world. Some model. After that, it was necessary to fight on to defeat al-Qaida, which sprouted a local branch in Iraq. The troop surge was supposed to give Iraqi leaders the security and time to bring about national reconciliation. It didn't happen. Now, the president's latest spin is that a U.S. withdrawal at this point will result in another Vietnam, where "millions of innocent citizens" were murdered, imprisoned or forced to flee after the fall of Saigon. What does he think is going on in Iraq now?

Meanwhile, Democrats may have more to lose in the latest Iraq debate than President Bush. Last week, Democratic leaders indicated that they might be open to a face-saving compromise with the administration - the drawdown of a few thousand troops so everyone can say U.S. military disengagement from Iraq is finally under way. It's time for Democrats to put up or shut up, to stand either with George W. Bush or the majority of Americans who oppose staying the course.

Gen. Petraeus has said Iraq defies a military solution. What else does Congress need to hear?

[Last modified September 8, 2007, 23:08:25]