Will Iraq become another Democrat debacle?

Ralph Peters:

THE Democratic dog just caught the Iraqi firetruck it's been chas ing for almost four years. Now what?

Wetting the back tires won't be enough. The victorious party's hard-left wing is anxious for an American humiliation. But that's not what the majority of Democrats want and it's a scenario that Dems on Capitol Hill, eyes on 2008, know they need to avoid.

Most Dem leaders realize that, with just a few missteps, Iraq could become their debacle. Their problem is that they never formulated a serious plan for Iraq. All rhetoric and no specifics, they just ran against the administration's bungling. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's long-overdue resignation yesterday robbed them of an obvious target. Now they have to deliver - or at least appear to be trying.

It's going to be hard. The political aim of the Democrats will be to continue talking a good game while avoiding responsibility through '08. They'll send up bills they know Bush will veto. And they'll struggle to hide the infighting in their own ranks - Dem unity on this war is about as solid as the unity of Iraq.

Now that they've won on the issue, the Dems would like Iraq to just go away. But it won't. And they've got to avoid looking weak on defense, so the military will get more money for personnel, at least. But we won't get a comprehensive plan to deal with Iraq or, for that matter, our global struggle with Islamist terrorists.

Of course, President Bush remains the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He still wields direct authority. In a forlorn-hope rescue effort, he may do what should have been done at the start: Send a lot more troops.

One proposal under discussion within the administration is to "send everything we've got" - to deploy every possible Army and Marine unit, no matter how worn and weary, for six months to "clean things up."

...

In the bizarre political confusion of our times, with old party characterizations nearly meaningless, one crucial factor that shaped the Iraq effort went unnoticed: Neither party understands warfare, and neither party wants to.

Political correctness shaped the Bush administration's approach to military operations as decisively as it did the Clinton administration's pop-gun antics. The Bush bunch just did things on a larger scale - they wanted a war, but didn't want to hurt anybody.

No matter how many troops we send, we're bound to fail if the troops aren't allowed to fight - under the leadership of combat commanders, not politically attuned bureaucrats in uniform. At present, neither party's leaders want to face the truth about warfare - that it can't be done on the cheap and that war can't be waged without shedding blood.

...

Just sending more troops isn't a strategy. Those soldiers and Marines would need a clear mission that focused on winning - not on pleasing the media or Saudi Arabia.

If, at this late hour, our president and his advisers can forge a viable, no-nonsense plan for Iraq, fine. But putting a bigger bandage on the hemorrhage won't help.

The Democratic win does bring us two benefits regarding Iraq. First, it means public accountability, something every administration, Republican or Democrat, needs. Second, it sends a message to the gang of looters atop Iraq's government that the free lunch won't last forever, that they've got to get serious about leading their country.

...

Peters makes the mistake that many have made in discussing war strategy in Iraq. He assumes that the administration was in charge of that strategy and not the military. Our current strategy in Iraq is a product of Centcom as it has been all along. It is based on Gen. Abizaid's belief that if we have too many troops in the country the Iraqis will not take responsibility. The problem we are facing right now is that the Iraqis have not seized the opportunity that Abizaid's strategy has given them. The recent decision to add more Iraqi troops is is a doubling down of the old strategy. It is also a way of avoiding the changes Peters recommends. Replacing Rumsfeld is not going to appreciably change Abizaid's strategy. What we have is a continuation of a debate that avoids a discussion of what Abizaid is trying to do and whether it will work on the time table that current politics permits.

Peters does make one key point. Hardly anyone participating in the debate understands warfare. My point is that they are not really engaging with those who do understand it. I think that one reason the critics do not engage in a debate over Gen. Abizaid's strategy is that they are not competent to fight on his turf. They therefore upward delegate the responsibility for the strategy to the political leadership that has accepted the strategy and then they denigrate it as a political matter. This does a disservice to the country, but it has obviously shown some success as a political strategy. The problem is that it is a strategy that is aimed at losing this war.