Is Picking At Scabs An Exit Strategy?

Frank Rich once again rants against the Iraq War. He believes the war is lost because poll numbers show a drop in public support, which he believes can never be reversed, and claims that few Iraqi forces have been trained to replace American troops.

Rich also resorts to the Vietnam analogy, although he fails to point out that the decay products of American communism, overindulged college students (among them, to my shame, yours truly), and a self-important press played a major role in the Vietname defeat. The Vietnam analogy also ignores

• The comparatively small numbers of the enemy in Iraq.


• The lack of nuclear-armed outside suppliers of weapons and other logistical items.


• A far lower casualty rate.


• The volunteer military.


• The reality of an attack on American soil by the allies at least of the Islamist wing of the Iraq enemy.


• Terrain that is far less favorable to the enemy than in Vietnam.

Frank's apparent glee at the impending defeat numbers him among those whose hatred for Bush overwhelms other considerations. No surprise there.

What's more interesting is that Frank makes some unexpected points, and like Samuel Johnson's dog on two legs, the fact that he is able to do it at all is interesting.

• He believes Cindy Sheehan's 15 minutes are over, and admits she's been taken over by left-wing hacks and flacks.


• He thinks the Democrats have missed the boat on the war, trying to criticize the President while not addressing the fact that in their great majority they voted to authorize the war. His example: Hillary Clinton staging an event about violent video games while violence flares in Baghdad and confrontation in Crawford.


• His exception: Sen. Feingold, who called for targets but not deadlines for withdrawal. Rich seems to concede that setting a definite target date for withdrawal would be a mistake.


• Rich finds the Democrats so feckless that he speculates that the solution to the war's difficulties may come from the Republican side.

What is missing in Rich's column, and the analysis of most war critics, is a balanced view of what has been achieved, what is yet to be achieved, and what has been lost. Also missing is a way forward.

For example, it would seem than anyone but a Ba'athist would regard deposing a thug like Saddam and setting the stage for his trial was an important achievement, whether the invasion was wise or not and whether or not there have been mistakes in strategy.

Also missing is any explicit thought about possible outcomes. The restoration of Ba'athist tyranny, or the creation of the first province of the Salafist Caliphate would be true disasters. Adoption of a federal constitution and establishment of a consensual government, even if sloppy and plagued by violence and corruption, would be a step forward, and indeed, the Iraq invasion has contributed to a bit of democratic fermet in Middle Eastern countries such as Lebanon and Egypt. The partition of the country, although not Washington's hoped-for result, would not necessarily be a disaster. Kurdistan, for example, was a success story even before the invasion.

Most critics of the war who are not simply blinded by anti-Bush and anti-American setiment, recognize that the moving finger has written, and the present policy issue is not what was done three years ago, but the way forward. These questions are not easy. I suppose a reflexively liberal retired theater critic may not have all the answers. But if so, perhaps he should write about something else in the Newspaper of Record.