Republican Retreat

Voters will give the GOP no credit on Iraq if it forces an ugly outcome.

Wall Street Journal
Monday, July 9, 2007 12:01 a.m.

The last of the brigades President Bush ordered for his military surge in Iraq only arrived in the country last month, and they have been heavily engaged with al Qaeda in the Sunni triangle around Baghdad as part of the new military strategy. So it's especially distressing that Republican Senators should decide that this is the time to separate themselves from Mr. Bush on Iraq.

"I do not doubt the assessments of military commanders that there has been some progress in security," Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared on the Senate floor late last month. But that didn't stop Mr. Lugar from concluding that its chances of success are "very limited." Why? The "short period framed by our own domestic political debate" won't allow it, he says. Instead, Mr. Lugar wants a "sustainable bipartisan strategy" along the lines recommended in November by the Iraq Study Group. Last week, New Mexico's Pete Domenici noisily joined this bandwagon, as have several other Republican Senators, some of whom face tough re-election fights next year.

So let's see. Mr. Bush and al Qaeda's Ayman al Zawahiri agree that Iraq--not Afghanistan--is the central front in the war between them. But GOP Senators looking ahead to the 2008 elections have decided that the real front in the war lies not in Baghdad or Baquba but in the Beltway, and that a "bipartisan" redeployment is a worthier goal than backing the current battle plan.


The irony is that this political retreat is taking place even as General David Petraeus's military offensive is showing signs of progress. "These Anbar [province] sheikhs who are cooperating with the United States have made an enormous difference in what was the most dangerous province in Iraq," said New York Times reporter John Burns in a recent interview on PBS's "NewsHour." "I was out there today at the capital, Ramadi . . . and it's gone from being the most dangerous place in Iraq . . . to being one of the least dangerous places."

Mr. Burns was talking about the trend among Sunni tribal chieftains to ally themselves with the U.S. and the Shiite government of Iraq against what they see as their gravest enemy: al Qaeda interlopers bent on making themselves the leaders of the Sunni community in Iraq. Al Qaeda has taken note of this shift by trying to murder the sheikhs, only increasing the rift between them.

That's a battle al Qaeda is likely to lose, provided U.S. forces are available in sufficient numbers to help Iraqi forces defeat them. It's also a battle that could bring moderate Sunnis on the same side as the predominantly Shiite government--just the sort of "reconciliation" our foreign policy mandarins have demanded of Iraqi leaders as the price of continued U.S. support.

Or as retired General Jack Keane told the New York Sun: "The tragedy of these efforts is we are on the cusp of potentially being successful in the next year in a way that we have failed in the three-plus preceding years, but because of this political pressure it looks like we intend to pull out the rug from underneath that potential success."

Proving his point, Republicans are focusing on what Mr. Lugar describes as the unwillingness of most Iraqi leaders "to make sacrifices or expose themselves to risks on behalf of the type of unified Iraq that the Bush Administration had envisioned." He should tell that to Sunni parliamentarian Mithal al-Alusi, whose two sons were murdered by Sunni terrorists, or to every other Iraqi government member who has survived assassination attempts in order to keep the prospect of a democratic, unified Iraq alive. No one in Iraq is failing to "compromise" because he thinks he can count on an endless American presence. Iraqis are debating core questions of power-sharing and federalism that are the hardest issues for any democracy to settle.

Everyone wants to see the day when U.S. forces can draw down, leaving the main job of security to Iraqis while staying available to pursue al Qaeda. But the timing of that decision should take place only when U.S. commanders on the ground believe that Iraqis can hold the gains so painfully won. The sheikhs who are now cautiously moving our way in Anbar province will not continue to do so if they can count the days to America's withdrawal.


As for Mr. Lugar's bipartisan hope, it would be wonderful to think that Washington could come together around a sustainable, long-term Iraq strategy. But how many Democrats are ready to work with Mr. Bush on that? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid now calls ending the war his "moral" obligation--as if America's departure would end anything--and he responded to Mr. Domenici's statement by saying GOP Senators must now vote for a rapid withdrawal.

The Democratic Presidential candidates are trying to out-compete each other to see who can demand a pullout faster. The goal for nearly all of them (save perhaps Senator Joe Biden) isn't to create some bipartisan policy that the next President could inherit and sustain; it is to use Iraq as a partisan club to win the 2008 elections, and only then worry about the consequences.

Republicans may think they can distance themselves from all this, but they'll get no credit from voters if they contribute to an ugly outcome in Iraq. Their best prospect for making Iraq less important in 2008 is military progress that allows for a reduction in U.S. forces with honor and a more stable Iraqi government. A divided Republican caucus that undercuts America's military efforts while chasing the mirage of bipartisan comity will only make their own election defeat more likely.