Benchmarks and contingencies

The media is awash with stories about the perceived crack in Bush's standard "no timelines" Iraq funding approach. SSDD from the bloggers, of course.

Although the President left the threat of a veto he is becoming more isolated as even politicos from his own party see a future of being joined to a loser and are beginning the push back. An election is coming, which apparently trumps everything. Bush's response was classic and of course correct:

But he said he cannot allow political considerations such as “the latest opinion poll, or how we can get our members elected” to drive his thinking.

Bush can afford to eschew realpolitik since he's got no political future left, yet, isn't this really a black and white issue-- either the war is important to national security or it's not? If the consensus view is a stabilized Iraq is absolutely vital to US long term interests then we've got no realistic options but to press on. We can change tactics (which we're in process of doing now) but we can't fully disengage without consequences.

Harry "this war is lost" Reid and his frozen-faced partner Nancy Pelosi, who just voted to remove all troops within the year, haven't talked much about the post-withdrawal consequences. They seem to operating under the premise that our Iraq choices are like the dinner menu at Denny's.

Will military engagement be forever off the table in Iraq or the Middle East? What circumstances would allow the Commander-in-Chief to go back in? If our departure causes a mass genocide or a regional war, or if al Qaeda takes over Anbar and sets up boot camps, will that trigger a deployment (or would we call it a deredeployment?).

It seems prudent to get such things nailed down before ANY troop pullout begins. Other questions--how will leaving Iraq affect the NATO operations in Afghanistan or other counter-terrorist measures going on around the world? What if Iran successfully absorbs Iraq and starts another Hizballah ground war with Israel? Are they still an ally? Finally, there is that outside chance that Saddam's WMDs were moved to Syria. Problem or not?

Blaming everything on Bush is certainly politically expedient but doesn't work very well for America. We need to know some things before the leaving begins.