Hot air on the Potomac can't stop bloodshed on the Tigris

The Democrat dominated Congress got the face-off it wanted, and Republican President Bush got the chance to use his veto pen only for the second time during his tenure; (FDR used it 635 times, Reagan 78 and Clinton 37). Sadly in the meantime the situation in Iraq festers in violence, irrational hatreds, and echoes a strange déjà vu of the tragic American policy in Indochina a generation ago.

In April 1975 Cambodia fell first and then Vietnam collapsed to the conventional communist invasions; Saigon surrendered on April 30th . Though American troops had left two years earlier and South Vietnam was standing wobbly on its own, the lingering fact remains that the war-weary U.S. Congress pulled the plug on our beleaguered allies.

While the ghosts of Vietnam long haunted Washington policymakers, the reality remains that the debacle in Saigon ended 32 years ago while debate over Baghdad is live on TV.

Political gloom and doom are promoted by a 24 hour media cycle where every incident is magnified out of all proportion to the bigger picture. While the Iraqi terrorists have a seemingly insatiable appetite for carnage and mayhem mostly against their own people, there’s no doubt either that American and coalition forces can’t totally break the back of the insurgency using the current tactics.

There’s also the bigger concern about the actual combat effectiveness of the Iraqi military and police who ultimately must either sink or swim without American help. In the meantime American, British and coalition causalities have dangerously increased given a very dogged and well supplied insurgency. Al Qaida terrorists, Saddam-loyalists and militant Islamic militias can keep the ghoulish game going for the near term. Islamic Iran fuels the sectarian fires and profits from Iraqi misfortunes.

The cacophonous political debate on the Potomac in Washington drowns out the strategic risks on the Tigris in Baghdad. As genuine and totally warranted unease about the war in Iraq grows across the USA, and a focused and ill-serving antiwar Leftwing opposition has emerged here too. This both re-fights the elections of 2000 and 2004 and dominates the political debate for the Presidential election of 2008. In effect it forces the President’s hand for better or worse. The conflict is as much about 2008 as it is about winning in Baghdad. Longer term U.S. objectives for Iraqi democratization and stabilization have been shadowed not by battles in Baghdad or Anbar province but by politicos tactically jockeying for the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries!

When vetoing the legislation President Bush stated that the Democrat Iraq bill supplants “the opinion of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders.”

There is certainly room for creative bi-partisan compromise. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid know the real risks involved should we falter. Still Senator Reid’s assertion “the war is lost” ironically made under a banner “Support Our Troops,” illustrates the total disconnect prevailing inside the Beltway.

There is certainly opportunity for revised military tactics. Yet General David Petraeus can only do so much short term when a political clock and calendar sets the pace of the war and the positive results are overshadowed by the car bomb carnage de jour which sadly fits the news cycle. And yes, there’s no doubt a place for a diplomacy.

But when the war is over for us, and when the American forces are back home, it’s unlikely the Iraq conflict will really end. As in Southeast Asia a generation ago, the worst may be yet to come. Congress should recall the price American may yet have to pay after we are gone, and should then seriously ponder the consequences of defeat, now or later.