This is why Democrats aren't surging

I subscribe to the Register-Guard, the only daily newspaper in Eugene, Oregon. The editors seem to be nice, well meaning sorts with a definite bias toward Blue politics. Like most Democratic politicians, their thinking on Iraq seems hopelessly muddled. Today's editorial was typical.

They begin by saying that the cost, $8 million per hour, is staggering and cannot be sustained. It is staggering, but sustainable. It's about what we lose gambling each year. It's less than we spend on tobacco. We could do it if we wanted to, and we would want to if it was securing our oil supply and thwarting terrorism. We could spend it next year, and every year thereafter.

But we won't, because it is doing neither of those things. The RG correctly notes this and proposes two actions for President Bush to take. One is irrelevant and the other is impossible.

The irrelevant suggestion is that the United States should declare in writing that if the Iraqi government asks it to leave, it will leave. The Iraqi government has had "sovereignty" for a year and a half. What does sovereignty mean if not the right to exclude foreign troops? We might not have taken such a rebuff from our puppet interim government (not that they were ever likely to deliver it), but if the government, quasi-freely elected under a quasi-legitimate constitution, tells us to go, then the game will be up. It doesn't help to put it in writing.

The second suggestion was that we tie our withdrawal to concrete progress. If we were making concrete progress, we'd be leaving! Nothing would make the United States happier than to have the conditions exist for a graceful departure, but since that's not happening, the departure is likely to become less and less graceful. Sooner or later, you get Saigon. Let's get out now.