At least 32 American troops have been killed in
Iraq this month. Approximately 300 have been wounded. The "battle for Baghdad"
is going nowhere. A Marine friend just back from Ramadi said to me, "It didn't
get any better while I was there, and it's not going to get better." Virtually
everyone in Washington, except the people in the White House, knows that is
true for all of Iraq.
Actually, I think the White House knows it too. Why then does it insist on
"staying the course" at a casualty rate of more than one thousand Americans
per month? The answer is breathtaking in its cynicism: so the retreat from Iraq
happens on the next president's watch. That is why we still fight.
Yep, it's now all about George. Anyone who thinks that is too low, too mean,
too despicable even for this bunch does not understand the meaning of the adjective
"Rovian." Would they let thousands more young Americans get killed or wounded
just so George W. does not have to face the consequences of his own folly? In
Not that it's going to help. When history finally lifts it leg on the Bush
administration, it will wash all such tricks away, leaving only the hubris and
the incompetence. Jeffrey Hart, who with Russell Kirk gone is probably the top
intellectual in the conservative movement, has already written that George W.
Bush is the worst president America ever had. I think the honor still belongs
to the sainted Woodrow, but if Bush attacks Iran, he may yet earn the prize.
That third and final act in the Bush tragicomedy is waiting in the wings.
A post-election Democratic House, Senate, or both might in theory say no to
another war. But if the Bush administration's cynicism is boundless, the Democrats'
intellectual vacuity and moral cowardice are equally so. You can't beat something
with nothing, but Democrats have put forward nothing in the way of an alternative
to Bush's defense and foreign policies. On Iran, the question is whether they
will be more scared of the Republicans or of the Israeli lobby. Either way,
they will hide under the bed, just as they have hidden under the bed on the
war in Iraq. It appears at the moment that a congressional demand for withdrawal
from Iraq is more likely if the Republicans keep the Senate and Sen. John Warner
of Virginia remains chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee than if
the Democrats take over.
There is a great deal of material available to the Democrats to offer an alternative,
much of it the product of the military reform movement of the 1970s and '80s.
Gary Hart can tell them all about it. There is even a somewhat graceful way
out of Iraq, if the Dems will ask themselves my favorite foreign policy question,
WWBD – What Would Bismarck Do? He would transfer sufficient Swiss francs to
interested parties so that the current government of Iraq asks us to leave.
They, not we, would then hold the world's ugliest baby, even though it was America's
indiscretion that gave the bastard birth.
But donkeys will think when pigs fly. A Democratic Congress will be as stupid,
cowardly, and corrupt as its Republican predecessor; in reality, both parties
are one party, the party of successful career politicians. The White House will
continue a lost war in Iraq, solely to dump the mess in the next president's
lap. America or Israel will attack Iran, pulling what's left of the temple down
on our heads. Congress will do nothing to stop either war.
By 2008, I may not be the only monarchist in America.