Politics, war strategy don't mix

The troop "surge" in Iraq has been in full force for just two weeks, yet some Republicans in Congress are already going wobbly for an "alternative strategy" focused on reducing troop numbers.

Democrats, of course, are pretty much aligned for a quicker, more decisive defeat through complete withdrawal of troops, but either course would be disastrous for Iraq and America.

The panic among those select Republicans is apparently driven by poll ratings from a public that is weary of the war. But that kind of "policy shaped by re-election" thinking is exactly why Congress is not the commander-in-chief. No war should ever be waged by the U.S. Senate, or even worse, the House of Representatives.

When you take politics out of the equation, the troop surge can hardly be considered a lost cause.

There are multiple reports emerging from Iraq about signs of success: vastly reduced sectarian violence and Sunni cooperation to defeat the head-hacking, self-detonating jihadi insurgents who are at the root of the savagery that continues in Iraq.

Why politicians do not seem to recognize the consequences of abandoning Iraq is hard to fathom. Yes, we know they are driven by the constant drum beat of anti-war Americans who are presumably in pursuit of "peace," but surely life is more complicated than sandlot baseball, where if things are not going well, you can take your ball and go home. American troops may indeed be brought home precipitously, but it won't result in peace in our time.

In a recent editorial calling for withdrawal, the New York Times candidly acknowledged the likely consequences: "Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate."

The Times should have continued, pointing out that American credibility would be severely diminished from the perspective of its enemies and allies. Who would ever bank on the will of the United States to prevail in any military or humanitarian effort again?

President Bush should not budge at this point. The surge should be carried out by Gen. David Petraeus and his commanders in Iraq, and evaluated and adjusted in the months to come. Violence in Iraq cannot be completely stamped out. But increasing stability is possible, to a point where American forces can be reduced.

We contend there should be a remotely situated American presence in Iraq for decades to come. Why have substantial forces in Germany or Japan 60 years after American conflicts in those countries ended? Strategically, it seems there should be some American force in the vicinity of a hostile and potentially nuclear Iran, some presence in a region that produces most of America's energy.

Abandoning Iraq to a future of chaos and tyranny will not serve our interests, but even worse, it would likely further Islamic extremism, which is already the most virulent enemy the United States and Western civilization will face for years to come.