Captain's Quarters -

The Washington Post excoriates the Democratic leadership for exploiting the appropriations process on war funding to pander for votes in a scorching editorial this morning. Calling Cut and Run/Slow Bleed 3.0 nothing more than a "trick" meant to impose an impossible timeline on a troop withdrawal, the Post blasts the Democrats for thinking about nothing more than their electoral prospects in 2008:

The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

The House bill lists benchmarks for Iraqi political progress and requires that President Bush certify by July 1 that progress is being made toward them. By October, Bush would have to certify that the benchmarks all had been reached. This is something of a trick, akin to the inflexible troop readiness requirements that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) wanted to impose to "stop the surge." Everyone knows that the long list of requirements -- including constitutional changes, local elections and the completion of complex legislation -- couldn't be finished in six months. In that case a troop withdrawal would have to begin immediately. If there was no "progress" by July, it would have to begin then and be completed by the end of the year.

The Democrats have tied themselves in knots attempting to appease the anti-war wing of their party, which demands an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They have tried to compare Iraq with Viet Nam for the last four years, but the Democratic leadership has started to see that one Viet Nam comparison appears true -- that the Democrats want to force a surrender and defeat through domestic politics without regard to the consequences of such a collapse. Even Ted Koppel has started to talk openly about the catastrophe that would follow an American withdrawal.

Do the Democrats have a plan if this catastrophe comes to pass? Viet Nam may have had strategic significance only in a Cold War world, but the Middle East has tremendous economic and political significance for the US. If Iraq collapses and starts a regional war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, oil shipments will likely stop and millions of people in Southwest Asia could get killed. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have already stated that they will likely enter Iraq to protect the Sunnis if we withdraw, which would bring Iran in to protect the Shi'ites, with Syria joining as Iran's military ally.

The Democrats have no answer for this scenario. Their plans extend no farther than appeasing their political base while attempting to dodge responsibility for their actions. Pelosi and Murtha haven't dared to simply cut off the funding for the war, because they know they will lose the Blue Dog Democrats and their majority if they try.

We cannot afford another cut and run from Islamist terrorists, a pattern which started in Teheran and which has continued through every contact with them since. With al-Qaeda in Anbar and the Mahdi Army in Baghdad, a retreat will be correctly seen as further proof of our lack of will and courage, and not just by the terrorists. Those who might support moderation and democracy will lose all credibility if the US and the West run away from lunatic terrorists, and they will cut the best deals they can with the most violent terrorists in their neighborhoods -- setting up the Middle East for generations of gang wars like we see in Gaza and the West Bank now.

The Democrats have no answer for this, no strategy, no plan, other than to pander for votes in 2008. The Post correctly points out their utter lack of foresight and comprehension.