IRAQ - WHAT NEXT?

Now Newt Gingrich, speaking here in New Hampshire, is calling the Iraq war a failure.

The Wall St. Journal rails against the defeatism that seems rampant now in Washington, and urges the President to take whatever actions are necessary to win in Iraq.

A key White House aid writes a memo, leaked to the New York Times, that expresses doubts about the ability of Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to deal with the deteriorating situation in that country.

If it is a failure, then speaking to Iran and Syria, who want us to fail, probably will not get us anywhere, according to Max Boot.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann think the Iraq Study Group final report will sell out our Israeli friends. An aide to the Baker panel thinks that the group will call for a regional conference, including Israel, that will try to wring concessions out of the Israelis.

As the Shiites and Sunnis arm themselves for the coming civil war in Iraq (if NBC thinks they are seeing a civil war now, what will they call it when the fighting REALLY gets started), Arnaud de Borchgrave thinks the way out of Iraq may be through Iran. The price will be tough to take.

Here is the must-read piece of the morning. A Saudi named Nawaf Obaid, who the Washington Post takes pains to indicate is not speaking officially for the Saudi government, says that if America withdraws from Iraq then the Saudi government must intervene in Iraq to protect the Sunnis from the Iranian-backed Shiites. If anyone thinks that this guy is just spouting off his opinion and it does not reflect the views of the Saudi government, then I have a bridge to sell them.

All of this paints a pretty bleak picture. The American people no longer support the war in Iraq, as expressed in numerous polls and, most importantly, in the last election. They want to win, or get out. The Bush Administration has been unwilling to do those things that would be necessary to win (substantially increase the size of the military, make war against those who are supporting the insurgents and militias in Iraq, etc.). Since the President has consistently refused to widen the war (just like Truman in Korea and Johnson in Vietnam) then, just as in those past conflicts, our only options are stalemate or retreat. We were able to choose stalemate in Korea only because we had invested enormous resources and firepower that enabled us to hold off the Chinese from kicking us off the Korean peninsula. We had a much larger military then, and a draft. We chose retreat in Vietnam. It appears certain that we will choose retreat in Iraq. While President Bush may not choose it, he will only be President for two more years. His successor will almost certainly withdraw our troops (unless America elects John McCain).

This will be an even worse defeat than Vietnam, as the Middle East is of far more strategic and economic value than Southeast Asia. Additionally, at least some of our enemies in Iraq will wish to take the fight to us here at home, even if we retreat from Iraq. That was, of course, not the case in Vietnam. All of this does nothing to change my long-held view that all of this is merely prologue to what will be the next big war.

NBC (and other news organizations) is now calling the war in Iraq a civil war. So what, you might say. Words matter. While the American people might support a war in which our troops are defending democracy and freedom from medieval barbarism (like Afghanistan), they will not support keeping our troops stuck in-between warring factions.

Britain makes plans to pull even more troops out of Iraq.

Iraqi President Talabani pays a visit to Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

Fred Gedrich says we should ask the Iraqis to hold a referendum on whether our troops should stay or go. Even if a majority of Iraqis voted to keep American troops in their country, I'm not sure that would change American public opinion which, as shown by the results of our recent election, is solidly opposed to our continued presence there.

Christopher Hitchens examines the nihilistic violence that is afflicting the Middle East from Beirut to Baghdad.

A classified report, previously leaked in general form to the Washington Post in August, has now been leaked in its entirety to the Post. The report says the situation in al-Anbar province in Iraq, a Sunni region, is getting worse, with al Qaeda in the ascendant.

If NATO is expected to carry its share of the load in Afghanistan, it would be helpful if more members did not restrict the ability of their troops to participate fully in the mission.

As the Pope prepares to go to Turkey, this piece argues that we are in a fight to the death with Islamism. Read the comments to find out how many people still refuse to believe it.

They say 50 is the new 40. They also say 10 is the new 15, which frightens this father of a 10-year-old.

In Mexico, the loser of the Presidential election took the oath of office last week. Is civil war a possibility in Mexico?

Congressman Rangel explains why he wants to resume the military draft. I have to say I agree with the concept of shared risk and sacrifice. But, as a veteran of the all-volunteer force, I think we get a consistently higher quality force when it is populated by people who all chose to be there.

Tony Blankley warns against making the last mistake in Iraq.

Robert D. Kaplan thinks that our failure in Iraq (if it turns out to be a failure) will help to re-establish reasonable limits on American interventionism around the world.

The assassination of Lebanese cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel is seen in some quarters as being the work of the Syrians. But read the comments after this article by Simon Tisdall in the Guardian. It seems there are lots of people who would rather believe it is the work of the Mossad and the CIA.

The Neo-Cons continue to offer up their views about how best to deal with Syria and Iran.

Finally, for a good chuckle, read this piece by Rick Moranis in the New York Times.

Here is a piece that connects the number of prostitutes a nation produces for export to its demographic decline. In this case, Iran's decline. A unique perspective.

Speaking of demographic decline, it appears as if Muslims in Russia will eventually be the majority. These trends paint a disturbing picture. As formerly dominant population groups begin to realize that they will soon be overwhelmed by minorities, especially if those minorities are from a significantly different culture, that will surely lead to the rise of a new fascism, and then terrible violence.

Nancy Pelosi is trying mightily to reign in her ultra-leftist committee chairmen. I'd wish her good luck, but that wouldn't be sincere.

The Iranians have invited the President of Iraq to join them and the Syrians for a summit in Tehran. I guess everyone has gotten the message that the U.S. is getting ready to cut and run, so it is time to make some deals.

Thomas Ricks in the Washington Post writes about the flaws in the Army's efforts to train Iraqis. If his account is accurate, it simply illustrates a continuing problem with our military, which is that it is very good at using technology and firepower to locate an enemy, fix him in place, and then smash him to smithereens, but it is not so good at nation building. Another argument for getting out of Iraq, and never again using our military for anything other than smashing our enemies.

Syria says it wants to help lessen the violence in Iraq. Of course, they also want the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawal. As I have said before, the Iranians and Syrians are only interested in negotiations with us about Iraq if they are limited to the terms of our surrender.

Arthur Herman lays out a scenario for military action against Iran.

Seymour Hersh has a lengthy piece on the machinations going on inside the Administration concerning the possibility of military action against Iran. My own view is that, unless the Iranians directly attack us or threaten to close down the Straits of Hormuz (and, thus, cut off our oil supply), we should not engage in any pre-emptive military actions. I have learned my lesson on that score by watching the debacle in Iraq. While I realize that a pre-emptive or preventative war may be less costly, both in terms of blood and treasure, it is clearly not something the American people are willing to support for any significant period of time. We need to wait until we are directly attacked, or our allies are directly attacked, by a specific nation (like Iran) before we can unleash our full military power on them with the complete backing of the American people. Of course, such a policy will pose a greater risk of defeat, and certainly a greater risk of a much costlier, bloodier war, but that seems to be the lesson of Iraq (and Vietnam, and Korea).

Victor Davis Hanson wonders if the West will stumble in the global war against Islamofascism.

According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon is considering three options for the war in Iraq, that wags inside the ring have dubbed "Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home".

Congressman Charlie Rangel has resumed his call for a re-instatement of the Draft. Now, as a committee chairman of the majority party, he will at least get the chance to hold hearings on such a bill, if not get it to the floor for a vote.

In Iraq, a culture of vengeance is driving much of the violence. I do not have a clue as to how that problem can be solved without the application of a far more massive amount of force than even the hawks are talking about.

RADIO DAZE

My old employer, Clear Channel, has been sold to a Boston-based investment group. That will take the company private, and will also result in a sell-off of TV stations and small market radio stations. What this will mean for the industry, I cannot say. The bottom line attitude of the last 15 years or so, as well as a host of other factors, has radically altered the industry, driving it away from any vestige of community service. I am not at all sure that it can be revived, especially in small markets.

Speaking of radio, WRKO has fired their entire news staff. Some very good people are now available, including my former colleagues Listo Fisher, Marga Besette and Paul Tuthill (I've known Rod Fritz and Deb Daigle over the years, as well, and they are no slouches).

It can be a crazy, unforgiving business, but I still haven't figured out how to do anything else, so I guess I am stuck with it (at least until I grow up).

My new Congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter, gets a big, sloppy, front-page kiss from the Boston Globe this morning. I expect, after a while, many voters in my district will become aware that they are represented by a Liberal Democrat, which might cause buyer's remorse in some quarters. Of course, I could be wrong. My district might actually have changed from a moderate-conservative district to a Liberal one over these last few years. Time (and a few elections) will tell.

Caroline Glick says we were right to topple Saddam's regime, and by doing so prevented him from developing nuclear weapons.

Ralph Peters says we won't be able to win in Iraq until we let our soldiers and Marines off their leashes and allow them to kill the enemy. Amen, brother.

Now they tell us! The New York Times says withdrawing from Iraq might not be as easy as it sounds.

Frederick W. Kagan explores the real-world problems that our military would face if it tried to put together an "over-the-horizon" presence to act as an emergency deployment force in Iraq, as has been suggested by some of the "cut and run" crowd.

Speaking of that crowd, consider the man running for Majority Leader in the House, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). John Fund writes a devastating piece in the Wall Street Journal about Murtha's role in the Abscam scandals of the late 1970s. Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, says that Murtha is unfit to be Majority Leader. Having seen a portion of the FBI videotape last night on "NBC Nightly News", even though Murtha did not take the bribe, his behavior was definitely beneath any reasonable ethical standard for a public official. He should have been punished at the time, but was not. His on-going opposition to ethical reforms in the House would seem to me to be indicative of an attitude that has not changed over the last 26 years.

Some grim thoughts about what the Iranians are up to.

Danger signals coming from Lebanon.

Europe continues to slide towards a new Dark Age, at least according to some.

Con Coughlin says the Iranians are training al Qaeda operatives.

The Afghans are saying that the Pakistanis are the source of suicide bombers afflicting their country.

Cal Thomas says our enemies were the real winners of last week's election.

Pat Buchanan says we are looking for the exit ramp out of Iraq, which will mean grim consequences for those Iraqis who threw in their lot with us.

The picture seems pretty bleak. An insurgency that cannot be defeated in Afghanistan because it is based in Pakistan. An insurgency that cannot be defeated in Iraq because it is based in Iran and Syria (and, perhaps, funded in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere). American power blunted because we were unwilling to launch a massive, global war against the Islamofascists and their allies. The result being a weaker America and, I would argue, an even greater chance that the big war will happen, and it will be even bigger, bloodier, and longer that it would have been otherwise (just like World War II, which would have been shorter and less destructive if the British and French had taken on the Nazis in 1938 over Czechoslovakia instead of waiting until the invasion of Poland in 1939).

CUT AND RUN

It didn't take long for the Democrats to reveal their solution to the Iraq problem....cut and run. The top Democrats in the Senate, soon to chair its most important committees, are presenting a plan that would call for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in a 4-6 month period, starting sometime in 2007. I cannot blame them for their plan, however, as they are simply obeying the will of the voters who put their party back in power. Based on the election results, and the polls, it is clear that a majority of Americans want our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. According to the exit polls, only 18% want to send more troops, as I do and as Senator McCain would do. If our political leaders are expected to listen to the will of the people, then they will withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Meanwhile, as James Baker and Lee Hamilton, co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group, meet with the President this morning as part of their efforts to come up with recommendations about Iraq, it appears that momentum is building toward negotiating our terms of surrender with Iran and Syria. Some folks are skeptical that the Iranians will accept our surrender, since they figure we're going to retreat anyway (see above).

If I were advising the Iranian Mullahs (and their wack job President), I would tell them to be patient. Keep talking about talking, and keep stringing the Europeans, the U.N. and American "realists" along. All the while, continue to move forward on your nuclear program. Eventually, the Americans will retreat from Iraq, and you will be able to take control of a significant chunk of the country, as well as credibly assert your leadership of the world-wide Islamist movement. The only wild card now is, of course, the Israelis. But, even that might be manageable. If the Israelis attack your nuclear facilities, they will certainly set your program back, but they will also become even more diplomatically isolated. Your will gain even more support among other Muslims, and you will have a freer hand to use your proxies to attack Israel. Even the Americans may distance themselves from the Israelis as a result of the backlash of world opinion against them. Patience is the key. The Americans, while powerful, lack patience. The Europeans, while patient, grow weaker every year. The Israelis, who can be patient and powerful, are still an alien people on an island in a sea of Muslims.

Oh, yes, if I were advising the Iranians, I would tell them that patience is the key to their eventual victory (unless some Sunni wack job lights off a nuke in the States, which would bring about the most terrible consequences for all Muslims, everywhere).

TIME TO WIN

I have made the argument many times that the American people are incapable of seeing a long, drawn out war to a positive conclusion if there is not a clearly visible and understandable path to a traditional victory. This was true during the conventional war in Korea, and also true in the conventional/insurgent war in Vietnam, and true today in the insurgent/sectarian war in Iraq. Each time, as the possibility of a traditional victory faded, public support for the war waned. Each time, however, responsible American political leaders understood that failure was not an option. Each time they responded by making one, last maximum effort to achieve some reasonable kind of victory.

In Korea, President Eisenhower maintained a very active defense on the front despite incessant Chinese attacks (see Pork Chop Hill) and, more importantly, secretly let it be known that the Atomic Bomb was still an option. This drove the Chinese and the North Koreans to finally agree to an armistice.

In Vietnam, President Nixon finally took the gloves off in the air war against Vietnam and sent troops into the VC sanctuaries in Cambodia. These moves drove the North Vietnamese to the peace table and allowed for a settlement. Sadly, since Nixon was discredited and forced to resign by Watergate, and anti-war Democrats surged into Congress in greater numbers in 1974, that victory was lost when Congress refused to fund any action, including air support, to help the South Vietnamese withstand the conventional North Vietnamese invasion in 1975.

The lesson is clear. Now that the election is over, it is time for the President to demand a strategy from his advisors, both military and civilian, that raises the level of violence on the part of OUR forces against the enemy. This means bold offensive action against the Sunni insurgents AND the Shiite militias. If the Iraqi government doesn't like it, that's tough. They will complain, but they will respect strength and resolve, especially when the alternative is their own extinction.

It is time to win. If we are unwilling to do what is necessary to win, then we should withdraw immediately. The chaos that ensues, resulting in a victory for al Qaeda, might be enough to awaken the public and our leaders to taking the necessary measures here and abroad that would truly make us a nation at war.

SO, WHAT HAPPENED?

So, what happened on Tuesday?

First, the American people collectively are incapable of long supporting a war that seems to lack any clear path to victory. If we cannot use our overwhelming superiority in firepower to bomb and blast our enemy into submission and surrender and, thusly, end the war, the American people are going to eventually rebel at the continued loss of our young people in combat that seems to most of them to be pointless. Most Americans now view the Iraq War in that light. They are not willing to spend the lives of their soldiers to bring democracy to the Arabs (or anybody else, for that matter) nor act as referees between battling sects and their armed militias. Since the President and the Republicans were unwilling to either use overwhelming force to crush our enemies or get our troops out of harm's way, they paid the price at the polls.

Second, conservative Republicans and independents who lean to the right have, over time, become disillusioned with Republicans in Congress who seemed only to be concerned with remaining in power rather than hewing to conservative, small government principles. Eventually, this was going to catch up with them.

Third, religious Republicans and others who care about morality and honesty in public life grew increasingly disenchanted with Republican leadership in Washington that seemed more concerned with maintaining their grip on power rather than enforcing high moral and ethical standards. The Foley scandal merely acted as the straw that broke the camel's back.

These problems, it seems to me, offer a clear path to electoral redemption, as they are all fairly easily solved. First, go all out to win in Iraq or get out. Second, return to conservative principles in speech AND ACTION. Third, set high moral and ethical standards and enforce them among your members. Now that the GOP is out of power in Congress, step one is up to the President. I hope he offers up a new strategy that will seek to do whatever is necessary to crush the insurgency and smash the sectarian militias in short order, even putting an Iraqi military government in place if that proves necessary. Unfortunately, I suspect the commission that is studying the matter will, instead, come up with a plan that will in essence allow us to declare victory and go home, which will lead to the disintegration of the Iraqi state and the triumph of our Islamofascist enemies. Steps two and three should be done by Republicans at all levels. If we return to the principles that brought about the Republican Revolution in 1994, then perhaps the voters will give us another bite at the apple.

ELECTION DAY

Go out and vote, please. It's important.

By the way, I will be providing some reports for WBZ-AM in Boston about the races here in New Hampshire, specifically the Congressional races. District One looks like a Republican hold. District Two is very close, and might be a Democratic gain, at least according to the latest polls.

NEW HAMPSHIRE - BLUE STATE

The slow but steady transformation of New Hampshire from a Red State to a Blue State is continuing, as a new poll is out showing that in the Second Congressional District Democrat Paul Hodes is building a big lead over Republican incumbent Charlie Bass, who beat Hodes two years ago by ten points. That same poll shows the virtually unknown Carol Shea-Porter within striking distance of Congressman Jeb Bradley in the First District. New Hampshire voters are also poised to deliver a resounding re-election for Democratic Governor John Lynch, who leads by over 50 points in a recent poll. While I can find much to quibble with in the polling data (the UNH polls, it seems to me, tend to overestimate the Democrat turnout as a percentage of the total vote), there seems to be every reason to believe that Governor Lynch will win big, and he may have some significant coattails. Combine that with the dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, and a general dissatisfaction with Republican rule in Washington over a variety of issues, and that is a prescription for big Democratic gains here in the Granite State.

I expect that Hodes will beat Bass, but probably only by four or five points. Bradley will hang on by a similar margin. Lynch's victory should lead to the Democrats picking up a bunch of seats in the state legislature and a couple of Executive Council seats. We might see a return to Democratic control of the State Senate, although the GOP should retain control of the State House.

If Bass loses, it will be ironic in that he rode the GOP wave into office in 1994.

For the Democrats, as the state's demographics continue to become more favorable to them, the major danger they face is hubris. Should they try to step too far to the Left, especially if they lead an effort to enact a state income tax, there could be a significant backlash. But, of course, all of that is for the future. As for today, specifically, this coming Tuesday, it looks like it will be a long night for the Grand Old Party.

Michael Ledeen continues to argue that we cannot win the war by treating the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate from the machinations of the Iranian and Syrian regimes. While I agree, I simply cannot get past the fact that the American people are simply not going to support limited wars for any significant period of time, as is shown time and time again down through our history. Thus, our ability to fight this war is seriously compromised.

Robert Novak has this analysis of the upcoming midterm elections. He believes the Democrats will narrowly win control of the House, but will fall short in the Senate.

Jay Cost also has an analysis of the elections, in which he finds fault with the analysis of noted political analyst Charlie Cook. Cost believes that the GOP still has a shot to hold onto control of the House and, if the Democrats do win control, it will only be by the narrowest of margins.

Paul Greenberg has this column about the war and public opinion, which provides some necessary historical context.

Robert Kagan says that even if the Democrats do win control of Congress, we will continue to stay the course in Iraq. This New York Times poll says that most Americans think the Democrats will change the course.

Arnaud de Borchgrave has a preview of what might be coming from the greybeards who are studying the Iraq problem.

Some soldiers in Iraq have an answer for Senator Kerry.

Jeff Jacoby has some scenes from the jihad.

Ralph Peters says the Arabs in Iraq are failing to create a viable democracy (although Kurdish Iraqis are succeeding) and it may be necessary to allow the new Iraqi Army to stage a coup and set up a military government in order to stabilize the country.

The New York Times has obtained some more classified information. This time, it is a slide used in a PowerPoint presentation during a classified briefing that shows Iraq sliding towards chaos. It seems to me that the leaker has to be a military officer. My guess is that more and more people inside the Pentagon are becoming disillusioned with the mission in Iraq and are hoping to get the policy changed, or the Secretary of Defense fired, or both.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, NATO continues to battle with the Taliban.

RealClearPolitics has the Democrats up six seats in the race for control of the Senate. There is also some new polling data on some key House races, according to this Reuters article, that also looks good for the Democrats.