Freedom's Truth

The Democrats reaffirmed their plans to cut-n-run from Iraq in Sunday talk shows. Democrats ran on ending the war weariness with a retreat and defeat plan; they won on that (although the Lamont-Lieberman race is a firmer indication of where people stand overall). And so, the Democrats' 'withdraw before we get blamed politically' plan is what we will have. Or so they said today.

Senator Carl Levin on ABC News said "We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months." Speaking on the same program, Sen. Joseph Biden said he supported Levin's proposal for a withdrawal.

Biden showed the Democrats' "politics over patriotism" hand when he commented that it was untenable for Democrats to be running in 2008 and still have US troops over there. So military engagements are now measured by the election cycle. We will call it "Operation Saigon II" or maybe "Operation Bugout".

But that is not the plan Bush has in mind. What is in store has been cooked up in the Baker's shop - let's call it "Plan B" for Baker - and will be executed by new Defense Secretary Gates, a member of that group. Baker's bipartisan Iraq Study Group is now front and center in the revamping of Iraq policy:

Those familiar with the panel's work predict that the ultimate recommendations will not appear novel and that there are few, if any, good options left facing the country. Many of the ideas reportedly being considered -- more aggressive regional diplomacy with Syria and Iran, greater emphasis on training Iraqi troops, or focusing on a new political deal between warring Shiites and Sunni -- have either been tried or have limited chances of success, in the view of many experts on Iraq. Baker is also exploring whether a broader U.S. initiative in tackling the Arab-Israeli conflict is needed to help stabilize the region.

Given the grave predicament the group faces, its focus is now as much on finding a political solution for the United States as on a plan that would bring peace to Iraq. With Republicans and Democrats so bitterly divided over the war, Baker and Hamilton believe that it is key that their group produce a consensus plan, according to those who have spoken with them.

The good news is that Bush administration has already - and properly - quashed the idea of partition of Iraq, and has been firm in the overall goal of maintaining Iraq's democracy. Beyond that, everything is 'on the table', even negotiating with Iran and Syria over Iraq.

What the President should do for "Plan B" is the following: Reconfirm the overarching vision of a democratic Iraq that is internally secure and stable. Lay down a clear marker of how to achieve success, make it a viable and achievable plan that Iraqis can work with - a plan to get Iraq's democratic Government to defend itself 100% within the next 18-24 months (meaning Bush finishes the job on his watch). It would be based on the expanded Iraqi army that Rumsfeld approved, and Iraq's reconciliation plan as well. Bush must then challenge the U.S. Congress and the American people to accept this plan which keeps the core goal while putting our metrics and milestones on a strict schedule. This "2 year to victory" plan must recognize the essential goal to preserve Iraq's democratic form of Government and not undermine these new institutions. But it may adjust them, knock heads and force Iraqi political leaders to coe to terms with need for real leadership and serious Iraqi political compromise.

If needed, increase troops levels to meet goals short-term (although the main mephasis would be training and equipping the Iraqis). However, that is likely not needed. What will be needed are many more advisors to help make the Iraqi army more capable. That should be seriously ramped up.

The time bound has one dangerous outcome: It invites the enemy to wait it out. It also treads the dangerous ground of trying to fight half-heartedly and violates the basic rule of 'dont leave until the mission is done". Our mission will have to be to train and equip the Iraqi force enough to be able to defend themselves. But they have no tanks, no armored vehicles, no heavy weapons.

But it has many salutary effects as well. For the Iraqi Government, it gives them a time line to shape up; for the Iraqis who mistrust America and are supporting the violence solely to make sure we eventually go, it ends the incentive to support the insurgents; for our enemies, it robs them of yet another argument against the U.S.

What if the "Plan B" is not agreed to by the new Democratic Congress?

Let the White House ask. Let the Congress debate. And watch the Democrats cave to common sense as they have a choice of being exposed as wanting to pull the rug out from under the troops immediately or going along with a plan that has a reasonable chance of working. In truth, the horrible Democrat position of 'withdraw in 6 months' is the 'opening bid', and as usual the Dems have signalled weakness to our enemies. Bush now is forced to find a viable alternative plan that balances the political realities at home with the need to bring Iraq to a better place than where it is today.

As they debate, I surely hope someone reminds them that the Iraq war is a part of the wider war on Islamofascist terrorism, and remind them of the sacrifices made and sacrifices we will make in the future to fight terrorists: Honor their sacrifice. Complete the mission.