How Do We End One of Our Greatest Disasters?

The latest straw man that Republicans seem ready to attack with unmerciful force is whether the Democrats have a plan that will successfully get the U.S. out of Iraq. As reasonable as this may sound on the surface, it is about as practical as hitting a solo home run in the ninth inning, down five runs with two outs.

Iraq has been the war where the over-whelming majority of Americans were required only to serve as the game-show audience, cheering on cue when the light came on. There has been no real sacrifice outside of the families of the men and women who serve in the armed forces.

In fact, we were treated to a series of tax cuts, unprecedented in U.S. war history. But looking back, those tax cuts feel a lot like hush money, buying our silence so we didn't ask critical questions in the run-up to the war.

As Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, they are met with a very stark reality: Iraq is not winnable. Even Mr. "Peace with Honor" himself, Henry Kissinger, does not believe we can win.

A country that fails to rely on the lessons of history to inform itself about the present and future, that also places a high premium on winning -- at least the appearance thereof -- will have a difficult time remembering who made the case for war and who has been responsible for the debacle that ensued.

Such illogic casts a very large, ominous shadow on a party where a large percentage voted for this exercise in megalomania to make it bipartisan -- not to mention the successful public relations campaign that has effectively branded the Democrats as weak on national security matters.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs calling for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, argued that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict.

"The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy," said Obama. "It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won."

Unfortunately, Obama's statement, though lucid and thoughtful, cannot measure up in terms of perception to the latest Pentagon argot of "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home."

Sounding more like a last-ditch sandlot football play than a viable policy solution, the latest Defense Department proposal recommends a combination of a short-term increase of 20,000 U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to increase training and advising of Iraqi forces, according to Pentagon officials.

What end does this serve? How will this scheme bring about anything other than more violence? Moreover, this proposal comes on the heels of a November that has already laid claim to over 1,300 Iraqi casualties, following 3,709 in October.

As Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said last week, "It is simply unrealistic to believe that somehow a temporary increase in troop levels will turn things around. We are long past any type of military solution."

The problem, however, is the collective absence of a plan from anyone -- Democrat or otherwise. In what is a strange twist of irony, any hope of U.S. troops getting out may rest with Syria and Iran. While I doubt that both countries are losing sleep over watching us being bogged down in Iraq, their motivation to help may lie with not wanting our mess to spill over into their countries.

Because politics is always part of the equation, it is quite possible that should the Democrats come up with a plan to get our troops out Iraq, this country's historical amnesia may cement the belief that they are weak on national security issues, potentially costing them future elections.

But that sometimes is the unfair price of courage, and I would gladly exchange a few elected officials if it meant finding an end to one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in our history.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at 208-6417. Send a letter to the editor to soundoff@angnewspapers.com.