And Yet We Remain At War

So what does happen for the next two years in waging the war now that the President does not have a Congress behind him?

In the short run, not much will change. Remember that in 1994 the Republicans gained 54 House seats and 10 Senate seats. Yet President Clinton and the Democratic Party remained relevant (Was it after '94 that the President had to answer the question of whether he was still relevant, or later on?). After the sting of electoral defeat wears off, the pro-victory side will find itself with many assets even though diminished. The Democrats experienced the same thing twelve years ago. And six years ago. And four years ago. And two years ago. Sure, some sought counseling and all too few fled to France and Canada, but most still struggled for what they believed in. That's what we do here.

I know some pessimists think that a Pelosi and Reid victory means retreat from Iraq, I don't think it is within her power to achieve that.

Some think that perhaps there will be an opportunity to reinvigorate the war but I don't think it is within the power of the administration to persuade a Pelosi House of that. I suppose it is possible that the President will demand an up or down vote on achieving victory in Iraq and see if the newly empowered Blue Dog Democrats want to wave the French flag or not. But I doubt this optimistic view, too.

So as long as this President remains committed to fighting in Iraq, we will fight. Congress will not risk being blamed for losing Iraq or allowing a terrorist attack by doing anything but adjust around the margins for the next two years. If the Iraqis aren't standing mostly on their own by January 2009, then I think things could change a great deal. But not before then.

So, I expect that we will put another battalion-sized task force in Afghanistan to prove we are no longer "distracted" by Iraq. Some existing Special Forces and UAV units already in Afghanistan will be called a "Bin Laden Task Force" so that when we finally get bin Laden, the credit will go to the image of "new" action rather than the result of time and persistence. And of course, any time a NATO ally adds a couple troops it will be portrayed as proper coalition building for the "good" war.

In Iraq, while there will be pressure on the President to establish timetables to pull out, Congress will not mandate them. Nor will Congress cut funding significantly. Much like capturing bin Laden any time after the press release of any change in policy over Afghanistan will lead to architects of those press releases claiming credit for success, any bad things happening in Iraq after any cuts or interference in the conduct of the war will be blamed on those legislative architects. I could see additional body armor being shipped over regardless of the fact that this is not and never has been a body armor crisis. I could also see Congress passing a ceiling on US troop strength in Iraq in a year. Which would require us to be more creative in rotating troops with overlap, basing reserve forces and more Air force assets in neighboring countries or afloat in the Persian Gulf, and perhaps hiring more private security forces to take over some duties.

More than ever, I am glad we have focused on building up Iraqi security forces the last couple years rather than trying to fight the war ourselves with our forces. If we had put 200,000 troops in Iraq, we still wouldn't be able to win because fighting an insurgency is not primarily about killing the enemy. Unless we resolve to kill half the adult male population and we are hardly about to do that (and no, I'm not regretting we won't). Yet we'd have enough troops to allow the Iraqis the option to sit back and mostly watch us fight the Baathists and jihadis--while blaming us for failing to control the situation and waiting to see which side would win. And with the same results of our 2006 election still likely or worse with so many troops in Iraq, we'd have to scale back our combat forces quickly without Iraqi forces ready to suddenly take over.

Remember, too, that Iraq's Shias and Kurds won't go down to defeat with us if we pull out too fast--they'll kill Sunnis on a grand scale until they flee or the survivors are cowed into submission. Genocide isn't an option for us but for Shias and Kurds, Sunni genocide will seem a completely rational alternative to their own genocide. It won't be pretty and it won't be the democracy we are struggling to implant, but the Shias aren't going back to their days of living under the tender mercies of the Sunnis.

As it is now, we can continue building (from scratch) Shia and Kurdish security forces (bringing in Sunnis as they become more willing) to allow our combat units to eventually transition to a reserve force and a deterrent to an Iranian conventional invasion. We will have more advisors spread throughout the Iraqi military and police forces. We will then focus on providing logistical support while we build up Iraqi logistical capabilities to take that function over. We have a two-year window to make visible progress on the former, and if we do that we'll have more time for the latter, I think.

I think that we will not, in fact, take down the Iranian regime. I thought it a mistake to wait and risk losing the Congressional elections but there you go. We probably won't even try to take out Iran's nuclear assets. If we don't address Iran, Israel will attempt to do the job with fewer assets because they have no choice. I think this will be the biggest problem that will arise out of our election. I admit it is conceivable that President Bush could confront Congress with the choice of backing him formally or going on record as opposing action against Iran. It is also possible that if the plan is to foment a revolt that we could simply react to it by supporting a revolution using the President's powers as commander in chief to move military units. Or maybe like many thug regimes, the Iranian mullahs will get sloppy and do something that even Speaker Pelosi can't explain away and therefore enable us to strike back.

The North Korea strategy will continue as is, I think. Which is good. Kim Jong-Il might pull out of the talks again and wait for 2009 if he thinks he can live that long. Or maybe he'll invite former President Carter to Pyongyang, cut a pretend deal, and hope a new Congress will accept the pretend deal.

In regard to covert methods of fighting terrorism, my bet is that Congress will legislate in areas lacking clear guiding legislation in a manner that preserves the basic capability but with details that allow Congress to claim they've protected civil rights of Americans (though those rights have never been in danger). Again, Congress won't want to be blamed for any terrorist attack here that follows any gutting of wiretapping, financing tracking, or interrogation capabilities. We've done well to avoid an attack over the last five years and if there is another attack after the Democrats take Congress, it could look bad for the new legislative leadership. Gitmo will likely close but there will be a replacement even if they are scattered smaller facilities. Again, nobody in power wants the next high casualty terror attack to be tracked to someone released from Gitmo by Congressional action.

There are only so many ways to fight a war successfully and we are doing them. We shall see if American victory is a universal objective of all Americans. If we don't all share that desire for victory in our haste for peace, we will find that our enemies desire peace less than victory. In the long run, our enemies won't respond to a retreat by suddenly embracing us. So if we try to recreate our 1990s vacation from history, history will return to remind us of what we face. That happened once on 9/11. It will happen again. But having turned the other cheek, we will likely be more in a national mood to destroy our enemies than defeat them and bring them to our side. Hell hath no fury like a pacifist scorned.

I''m tempted to conclude by saying lovely decade we're having, eh?

But we remain at war, so whining and moping isn't an option while our troops are still in the field fighting to protect us. If I read of anybody heading for counseling because we will have Speaker Pelosi, I will truly heave my lunch. And I don't want to hear complaints about the voters. Leave that to MoveOn.org. They did that for six years and I imagine now their view of the people's IQ has improved dramatically. The people weren't brilliant when they voted Republican and they aren't idiots now that they've voted Democratic. They had a choice and they made it. For those the voters didn't choose, ask why you couldn't persuade a majority of Americans that you were best to protect us. Given how obvious the threat is, I think the fact that you couldn't close the deal pretty damning. Don't take too much comfort in how close the individual races were. Take responsibility. Focus on the essential. Grow the ef up and make sure the voters can believe you deserve to win!

Our enemies won't take a timeout while we war supporters cry in our beer. Review our assets, cover new weaknesses, work the problems, and win the war. I still believe the advantages lie with us and not our enemies. Besides, nobody else can protect us. Let's get to work.