Bradley J Gitz makes an important observation here

“The bare minimum that we should expect of our public officials-that they should weigh the impact of various policy options on the national interest…”

His point this week is that the Democrats just are not thinking long range or strategically concerning Iraq.  Well, I’d like to know where the hell Gitz was with this pertinent observation in 2002 when Gitz’s President went to war with absolutely no plan. The White House, the Gitz’s, the Religious Right, the Kool-Aide kids and most importantly the President had this movie running on a continuous loop of being greeted as liberators and delivering the death blow to terrorism.  Even Papa Bush knew that overthrowing Saddam would put our country and that region in peril. Now Gitz wants to shift the blame on the mess we are in..where is the Democrats Plan? Well Bradley, it’s like this, we can’t win, Bush doomed us to failure by sheer incompetence, mismanagement and a total failure in understanding the region as a whole. The Democratic plan…is get out and soon.

 So for the fun of it, and perhaps, although a very long shot of enlightening Mr. Gitz, let us address some of his observations and answer a few of his questions;

 But even if Democrats won’t do it, we can identify at least three possible, overlapping scenarios for Iraq after Democrats have got their way and American forces have left.

Bad news Bradley, the American people threw the Republican leadership to the curb in 2006 because of Iraq, they want out now and the polls show it.

CBS Poll - Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?

Should	57
Should not	38
DK/NA	5

Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.

Block all funding	9
Allow only w/time limit	58
Should allow all funding	29
Don’t know/No answer	4

Scenario No. 1 is a further slide into a civil war that would produce vastly more deaths than have occurred thus far and which also would bring in interested neighboring parties, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey.

Civil war - see Scenario No. 2

Scenario No. 2 would be a civil war that somehow stays confined to Iraq and in which Iraq’s Shiites are permitted to ultimately overwhelm Iraq’s Sunnis.

Bradley, bad news again, this is a civil war and the only reason it hasn’t escalated to the proportions that you predict is that we’ve got 130,000 troops on the ground. Whether we leave today, next week, next month or next year, the minute our presence is not there, all hell is gonna break loose. We can’t prevent it. In fact it appears we don’t want to prevent it, this is a civil war and yet there are no serious talks with the Shia, Sunni or Kurds? Perhaps this might be a question worth pondering?

 And then there is scenario No. 3, in which civil war in Iraq does not necessarily ignite a region-wide conflict or lead to an extension of Iranian influence but simply turns the country into history’s most dangerous failed state.Lastly Scenario No. 3, “history’s most dangerous failed state”. I suspect this is Gitz’s great political fear. If you are a Republican, this total failure of Bush’s “War” could well put the GOP in the irrelevant corner for probably a decade or more. I have absolutely no doubts that this will be viewed in American history as the most dangerous and failed policy and American Presidency ever. If I thought for one minute that the vast majority of the Republican leadership or Republican shrills cared anything about the ramifications this war has brought or will bring on our country in the future, I would jump hoops. I don’t, it’s about covering their rears, it’s about trying to justify the unjustifiable. It’s about shifting the blame rather than taking responsibility. Bush and the Gitz’s of this world are down on their knees everyday, praying that the surge will work, that the Middle East won’t fall into total pandemonium until 2009, their future’s depend upon it. I’ve said it before, I hope it works too but I know we are just delaying the inevitable, how sad for Iraq and our country. Back to “failed states”, as they go, it’ll be the Iraqi people that will determine if Iraq is a failure. We still need to be there to assist in rebuilding their country, after all we broke it, but the responsibility and the path that Iraq . Just crack a history book open and read a little about how America has been defining and redefining its destiny for over 200 years. 

Which is also why we should now demand of Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln and the rest of our representatives in Congress that they explain why none of the scenarios described above are likely to happen, or, if they do unfold, how that would be better for the country and people they represent.

A bit blow the belt here. Gitz should of demanded that the President and our representatives explain the scenarios which were discussed, if any. Was there any talk or preperations for a Plan II if the invasion and the democracy experiment didn’t accomplish the mission. Gitz is about 3.5 years too late to wonder about the what if’s, the maybe’s and the consequences. Rome is burning and it’s time to step back, regroup and get out of Iraq. We well may have to go back, but if we do, let us hope that Gitz and his fellow breathen ask the hard questions and demand answers and be assured that we have a plan and that that plan will work. This country is owed at least that much.