Looking at Iraq through the 70-60 Lens

Soon after the November elections we will find out the results of the bipartisan group headed by former secretary of state, James Baker and former Democratic congressman, Lee Hamilton that has been charged with conducting an assessment of the war in Iraq.

Called the Iraq Study Group, they have been meeting since March, and will provide the president and Congress with an evaluation of the situation on the ground, its impact on the surrounding region and consequences for U.S. interests.

Regardless of the group's findings there are certain things that we already know. There are essentially four possible alternatives--all come complete with their own set of severe downsides. We will stay the course, plan for a troop withdrawal, or send in additional troops. The fourth possibility could also include some variation of the previous three by dividing Iraq along ethnic lines.

It appears doubtful that the president would call for a troop level between 300,00 and 500,000; the number many military experts suggest would suffice to quell the current violence and stabilize the region. There definitely not 51 votes in the Senate for that, regardless of the midterm election results.

Moreover, he has recently backpedaled on the "stay the course" rhetoric. That leaves some type of troop withdrawal or dividing Iraq along ethnic lines. Should Iraq divide along ethnic lines--the Kurds already seem headed in that direction--I don't see how we could have much say in the matter. Our only viable option is some form of troop withdrawal.

Whatever is proposed going forward, the American people should demand that it be factored through the "70-60" lens. The "70-60" lens refers to the recent poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes that the revealed the following Iraqi feelings about US presence in Iraq:

• 71% of Iraqis want US forces to leave within a year. Of that group, 37% want a US withdrawal within the next six months.
• 61% approve of attacks on US troops.
• 78% think the US presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing.

For all of the bravado of "Mission Accomplished," the naïveté of "we will be treated like liberators," the hyperbole of impending "mushroom clouds," the delusion that things in Iraq are going "remarkably well"; the swagger associated with calling the Democrats the "cut and run" party, and the arrogance of telling the press to "back off"'; there is little discussion about what it means to have troops in an area where a majority of those whom they are allegedly protecting not only want them to leave but is okay with the concept of killing them.

October was the fourth highest American death toll since the war and occupation began. On two separate occasions this week, 29 Iraqis were killed and 60 wounded in a Sadr City bombing, while in Basra bombers killed at least 83 Iraqis.

For no other reason, the Democrats must retake the House and Senate. To maintain Republican majorities in Congress would send a message of validation for a policy that must be repudiated in the strongest terms.

Future historians may conclude that the president was right in Iraq. I doubt it. There is little doubt, however, that he is wrong in the present.

He can no longer ride the wave self-assurance. The president, his administration, and by extension the American people are dangerously close to drowning in the cesspool of denial. Just as the little boy said to the emperor that he has no clothes, someone must say to the president, preferably from the Iraq Study Group, that he has no policy.

According to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, the president was frustrated about the difficulty of finding a reliable Iraqi leadership in the new government. He reportedly asked, "Where's George Washington?" "Where's Thomas Jefferson?" "Where's John Adams, for crying out loud?"

Too bad he didn't ask those questions before the invasion, they would have no doubt told him that Iraq was a quagmire in the making. Instead he chose to ignore the council of the Founding Fathers, leaving them in the National Archives, visiting hours are between 10:00AM-5: 30PM.