Trying to leave gracefully

I agree with Fred Kaplan's assessment, James Fallows' suggestions for a dignified exit from Iraq make a hell of a lot of sense (and is well worth a read). But just as many of us thought it made sense to confront Saddam Hussein, once and for all shut down any weapons programs he may -- not -- have had, and put an end to the disastrously cruel and ineffective sanctions programs, but knew that the Cheney administration was not serious about the aftermath of that confrontation, Fallows prescriptions contain the same flaw. The current administration is not capable of such careful, considered planning that does not contain instant gratification.

"What is needed for an honorable departure," he writes, "is, at minimum, a country that will not go to war with itself, and citizens who will not turn to large-scale murder." If we can manage that goal, he states, we can leave in good conscience, regardless of what might happen a few years down the road.

However, he recognizes that even this goal may be beyond our resolve and resources. It requires a "national army strong enough to deter militias … and loyal enough to the new Iraq to resist becoming the tool of any faction." It also requires policemen who are "sufficiently competent, brave, and honest to keep civilians safe."

This can be done, even as we withdraw combat troops, but only if we step up training—building more facilities, recruiting more translators, and changing our military culture so that the trainer of an Iraqi battalion gets more rewards than the commander of an American battalion—and only if we maintain an active presence of U.S. air, logistical, medical, intelligence, and communications forces, and do so "for years."

Fallows' capper: The U.S. government should either do all this or "face the stark fact that it has no orderly way out of Iraq." This is the fallacy of Bush's "stay the course" policy: It leads nowhere. Fallows insists that we either make the commitment—which doesn't require ground troops but does require patience, money, and imagination—or pack it in; anything else is a waste.

Patience -- the Bushies have never had any of that. For them, if something doesn't result in immediate gratification, like invading Iraq and getting to Baghdad in a week, then it's not worth doing. Staying the course is not really Bush's prescription for what to do in Iraq. Staying the course, to him, means staying loyal to him.

Money -- even though, obviously, deficits really don't matter to those in charge in Washington, money spent in Iraq may be money not spent on bridges to nowhere in Alaska and that, ultimately, is politically untenable.

Imagination -- Right. If clowns like Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz had any imagination, they would have easily imagined the mess we're confronting now. Others certainly did. I don't think an imagination gene is in their DNA, and I don't expect them to develop one (since they don't believe in evolution) now.