The Democrats' bloodbath in Iraq

David Ignatius:

The last time I remember Ambassador Ryan Crocker warning about a possible bloodbath, it was in September 1982 as the Sabra-Shatila massacre was taking place in Beirut. So when Crocker tells The New York Times that a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq could produce a human tragedy on a far larger scale, people should take notice. He has seen it happen before.

Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, described the dangers starkly on Monday, in explaining what might happen if the United States withdraws its troops too quickly from Iraq: "The dangers could be a civil war, dividing the country, regional wars and the collapse of the state."

Those are the stakes as the Senate debates the military authorization bill this week. The daily death toll measures the cost America and the Iraqis already are paying, but Crocker and Zebari are right in warning that a sudden U.S. withdrawal could be even more costly: The violence that is destroying Iraq could spread throughout the region -- an inferno stretching across Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Syria and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- with devastating consequences for global security.

Getting into Iraq was President Bush's decision, and history will judge his administration harshly for its mistakes in the postwar occupation. But getting out of Iraq is now partly in the hands of Democrats who control both houses of Congress. History will be equally unforgiving if their agitation for withdrawal results in a pell-mell retreat that causes lasting damage.

...

The essential elements of the compromise that's necessary don't seem all that complicated. Democrats need to be assured that the troops are beginning to come out; the administration needs to be assured that they aren't coming out so quickly that it will undermine regional security.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates appears to recognize what's necessary, politically and strategically. He is said to favor an announcement by September that the U.S. will withdraw some troops from Iraq before year-end as a sign that it is committed to a "post-surge" redeployment. The opportunity for a modest drawdown will arise this fall, when two battalions, roughly 5,000 troops, are scheduled to rotate out of Iraq. One of those is a Marine battalion in Anbar province, where the administration has been touting U.S. success. A good way to underline the gains in Anbar would be to reduce U.S. troop levels there.

...

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that the troops should be coming out before the surge is completed. It signals the enemy to lie low and the offensive will pass. While Ignatius is still in love with the Baker-Hamilton report, I still think it is seriously flawed, particularly in its assumption that Syria and Iran have an interest in a stable independent Iraq. This is belied by both countries doing their worst to make Iraq unstable.

We are still rounding up Iranian secret cells used to import EFP's for killing our troops and the Iraqi border guards just intercepted a truck at the Syrian border with 200 explosive belts. None of that is evidence of any intent to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

Reducing troops prematurely will be as bad as pulling them all out prematurely. The politicians need to get out of the way and let the military decide what troops are need to accomplish the mission in Iraq. Meanwhile the politicians and the pundits need to study the counterinsurgency manual that Gen. Petraeus authored before telling him how to run the war.