Not Blinking

As we wait uneasily to see what the next futile tactics will be in the war we can't admit we've lost, there is much speculation and argument over which direction troop levels should move. Up or down? In or out? Surge or withdraw? Even the Pentagon brass know it's a giant game of Texas hold 'em, so why not be frank with the terminology? The options are basic: raise or fold.

Tony Snow, the White House's chief propagandist, got pissed off the other day at senators who were criticizing Bush's "way forward" before it had even been announced. But if you're into the gambling mode, honestly, which way are you going to bet? Is anybody willing to put money on this president taking a sensible course?

It's clear Bush is still in denial about what has happened in Iraq and why. Making strategic use of the wounds inflicted to our national pride by the events of 9/11, Bush and his neocon Power Rangers pushed us into a war that cooler heads--most of our long-standing NATO allies, and (now we know) four living U.S. ex-presidents would have counseled against. Despite what looked like early successes, we began immediately laying the foundation for the unmitigated disaster that has ensued: fired the general who told truth to power and said we'd need more troops to occupy a country this size, disbanded entirely the Iraqi military and police, discarding every ounce of military and law enforcement expertise they contained, and failed to recognize or admit that things were turning sour until it was too late. (Rumsfeld quibbled over words like "insurgency," "guerrilla war" and "quagmire" instead of dealing with problems they represented.)

And now Bush is still touting the need to achieve "victory" in this misbegotten escapade. The path to resolution, though, has to start with facing the truth. We have already lost this war. We can toss more American lives on the heap if we choose, but if we refuse to admit we've gone beyond the point of redeeming or recovering our loses, it will make no more sense than tossing more black chips on the poker table as the winner rakes in his winnings.

But if that's so, where do we go from here? We are warned that forthright, rapid withdrawal of forces from Iraq would lead to unimaginable bloodshed. There seems to be general agreement that since U.S. action brought about this grisly civil war, it's our duty to find and foster a solution.

But we can't accomplish that by pursuing the illusion that we can reverse time and shove the toothpaste back in the tube. The all-out sectarian battle has already begun, and one side or the other is going to win. We can continue to stand in the middle and draw out the bloodshed over more months and more years, but we can't--no matter how generous, constructive or diplomatic we may feature ourselves--make a unified nation out of the tribal factions who have so many reasons to hate each other.

If there is any hope for this disjointed nation that exists despite itself, it will arrive on the wings of hard work and difficult compromises among the contending factions of Iraqis. If Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds cannot bring themselves ever to cooperate for the sake of a functional state and civil well-being, then there is nothing further for the U.S. to accomplish with troops and tanks. We acted with quixotic impulse, but we did manage to lift the Baathist boot from these people's throats. And the argument that we can't leave now for fear of sectarian bloodletting obviously begs the question of why can't this supposed "unity government" that our president keeps touting make some tough decisions to avoid the same bloodletting that American soldiers are supposed to prevent.

The bets are down. If we blink now, those guys across the table won't even have to show their cards.