[Iraq]

Now or Later?

Give John Murtha this: the debate is no longer whether to pull out, but when. Think about that for a second. A year ago, Kerry was giving voice only to the most muscular of Mesopotamian approaches. Even a few months ago, Cindy Sheehan was on the front lines for her radicalism. Now it appears that even the architects of the debacle have put a fairly strict timetable on it, and anxious politicians don't want to be looking too hawkish a year from now.

I personally have been in the break-it-you-bought-it camp. My attitude is that, having brought shock and awe to the citizens--ostensibly (or post facto-ly) to free them from a deranged madman--we owe the Iraqis something more than a civil war. It's a little bit of that Wilsonian idealism, I guess. But the break-it-you-bought-it model actually presumes you bought it. In our case, we seem to have just broken it, with the intent to keep it broken and unbought (by, say, a responsible governing coalition).

Murtha's point, and one I find increasingly persuasive, is that not only are we not going to improve the country's fortunes in the next couple years, but we're likely making things far worse in the interim. I still think we'd leave the country to civil war by pulling out, but failing a responsible White House--which we won't have for three years, at minimum--we'll leave them with that, in any case. Maybe it's time to consider cutting and running.