A timetable is not a Plan

The New York Times got it exactly right today in its editorial A Timetable Isn’t an Exit Strategy, August 6, 2006:

As America’s military experience in Iraq grows ever more nightmarish, it is becoming clear that President Bush’s strategy comes down to this: Keep holding to a failing course for the next 29 months and leave it to the next administration to clean up the mess.

That abdication of responsibility cannot be allowed to continue at the expense of American lives, military readiness and international influence. . . . Unfortunately, [the Democrats] have their own version of reality avoidance. It involves pretending that the nightmare can be ended by adopting a timetable for a phased withdrawal of American troops.

[ed. comment: what the NY Times calls "abdication of responsibility" I call murder, "murder most foul, as in the best it is."]

The Times continues:

Mr. Bush’s cheerleading encourages the illusion that it is just a matter of time and American support before Iraq evolves into a stable democracy. The Democratic timetable spins a different fantasy: that if the Iraqis are told that American troops will be leaving in stages, at specific dates, their government will rise to the occasion and create its own security forces to maintain order.

The Iraqi government has not failed to develop adequate police and military forces of its own because it lacks the incentive. It has failed to do so because it is weak and divided, because its people are frightened and because the strongest leaders in the country are the men who control sectarian militias. A phased withdrawal by itself would simply leave the American soldiers who remain behind in graver danger, and hasten what looks like an inevitable descent into civil war.

I can't say it better, only more simply: The President's plan is a utopian daydream, while the Democrats' plan, may result in short term political gains at home and fewer troop deaths abroad, will hasten Iraq's fall into more disastrous sectarian strife.

The Times recommendation makes sense too, it is a shame the President will never take such advice.

The only responsible way out of Iraq involves all the things President Bush refused to consider on the way in. That means enlisting help from some of the same Arab neighbors and European allies whose opinions and suggestions were scornfully ignored before the invasion. Getting their assistance would be a humbling experience. Americans may feel the war is going badly, but they have not been prepared to acknowledge failure.

America’s allies have an interest in not seeing Iraq turn into a hive of terrorists and a font of regional instability. However, before other nations become involved they would certainly insist on a laundry list of American concessions, from a share in war-related business for their contractors to an all-out United States push for a renewed peace process among Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbors.

As I have been arguing for the last three years, the Times has said, the President need to accept some humble pie. He needs to admit that he made mistakes, that he treated our allies shabbily, that our allies experience in international affairs is a resource to be mined (mining is something he seems to favor) instead of discarded, and that Iraq is not a building ground for Halliburton's next earnings report. Responsibility must be shared equally, as must the benefits, and most importantly, those benefits should go to the Iraqi people. And that if the current violence is to be brought under control the U.S. must stop trying to play one militia against another, must condemn all militia equally, and the U.S. forces that leave MUST be replaced by an international force that is perceived as legitimate by the Iraqi people - which means for starters, that substantial assistance must be sought from the Arab League (see my posts "The Definition of Chutzpa", July 31, 2006 and "The Beginning of the End in Iraq", July 25, 2006).

Of course, President Bush has proved himself virtually incapable of admitting to a mistake of any degree, much less the total failure of the central agenda of his administration.

But, to one extent, I disagree with the NY Times. Yes, the Democrats fantasy is a withdrawal timetable which will not result in greater safety for our troops or the Iraqi people. However, the "timetable" policy, is not inconsistent with the requirements set out by the NY Times (and above), there is no reason both can not be implemented simultaneously. Second, there is nothing the Democrats can do to implement any policy during the next 29 months (even if they win both houses of Congress, the Democrats will not be in a position to direct policy). So, if the "timetable" plan is not fleshed out in detail, that's not necessarily a bad thing: because it reduces the debate to the relatively simple terms that the American electorate seems to like most: "The President's plan is working" vs. "It's time to try something else." So why should the Democrats talk about making deals that will obviously curtail America's "go it alone" might and strategy when every detail suggested will be savaged by the Rove/Cheney "dissent is treason" machine.

It is a shame that the health, safety and lives of our troops and of the Iraqi people is made subject to the vagaries of the American political system. These decisions should be made on the basis of what's best for the troops and what's best for the Iraqi people instead of what makes the best sound-bite.

However, until President Bush shows himself capable of working with, instead of against, our allies (witness the past few weeks in which the U.S. was the only civilized nation to oppose a call for a cease-fire in Lebanon - and GWB didn't even think it was important enough to speak directly to Ehud Olmert or other important mideast leaders), and until the President admits that his policy has failed (and replaced Rumsfeld), and shows a willingness to seek compromises instead of bullying through his agenda, the Democrats really can not be blamed for failing to be as detailed as the situation merits.