"When"

To the chagrin of a sizeable portion of the American public, instead of just pulling the plug, Democrats are trying to politically "navigate" their opposition to the War in Iraq -- striking just the right notes to keep the antiwar base mollified while being careful not to...to....what?

Majority opinion has turned against the War decidedly. Most Democrats hate it, most independents don't like it and even some Republicans have jumped ship. So what are the Democrats afraid of? Here's what:

If the Democrats cut off funding or pass anything "binding" (and its hard to imagine the Bush Administration adhering to any such measure) then there are three possible political "blowbacks".

The first is the most immediate and the most commented upon -- that they'll be blamed for exposing the troops. Of course, thievery great and small in this war has already assured done this. But, Bush & Co. would love nothing better than to pin the lack of body armor on Democrats. So, politcally at least, its a real concern. But I think it might be overblown concern. If defunding is coupled with timelines for withdrawal and staunchly defended, I think the American public will get it. The Republican's attempts to confuse supporting the war with supporting our troops hasn't been gaining any traction. Only Republican circle-jerkers believe it .... or say they do.

The second is less commented upon. If troops are removed and there's another terrorist attack on US soil, then the GOP attack machine will swing into full gear -- blaming the Democrats for bringing the "War on Terror" back to American soil.

The "fly paper" theory of the War -- that the invasion of Iraq draws the terrorist to fight our well-armed soldiers over there instead of "fighting" our unarmed civilians over here -- has always been a stepchild "meme". After all, its pretty weak to argue that getting your boys killed in Bagdhad is the best way to stop terrorist attacks in New York. The death rolls for 9/11 and the War are roughly the same at this point, so as strategy, it sucks. But after a subway bombing, it won't matter. Republicans, conservative independents and self-styled "realists" will embrace the Administration with renewed vigor. The American public will overlook the Administration's poor execution of the war as a mere detail and embrace their strategy as something, anything. The GOP's attack machine will whir into a high wine as they conjure up handy "crazy like a fox" narratives quicker than Uncle Remus.

The last possible outcome is that Iran gets provocative. I'm guessing that most Americans don't realize (or have a hard time believing) that we've been more provocative toward Iran than they have toward us. In 2003, Iran's reformist Prime Minister Khatami offered the U.S. help in stabilizing Iraq and offered to de-fund Hamas and Hizbullah. Not only was that offer rejected (by Cheney) but the saber-rattling was intensified and Iran isolated, leading to the election of right-wing cook Mahmud Ahmadinejad. (See above point about threatened people turning to cooks). Ahmadinejad may indeed have designs on Iraq. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate claims to know what's on his mind. But if Iran even uses the tiniest bit of leverage in Iraq, you can expect, like scenario #2, the Republicans to use it to their advantage.

The point isnt' that any one of this will happen, the point is that when you end a war, you're saddled with the second guessing as much as the war's architects. And, sadly, you get no credit for the lives and fortunes saved. 35 years after we pulled the plug on Vietman we still have people who blame protestors, peacniks and uncommitted politicians for the "loss" of that war. Even the war's opponents, when they look back, are unlikely to focus on the sensible politicians who pulled the plug.

In the waning months of World War I, as it appeared that Germany was facing a disastrous loss, the German Imperial government that had led the country into war let the Social Democrats into the cabinet for the first time. Faced with shortages, mutinous soldiers and certain defeat the Social Democrats sued for a treaty and declared Germany a republic. During this new Weimar Republic of the 1920’s a fable developed in far right circles that victory (of varying sorts) was possible had the Social Democrats not so quickly. The overly burdensome Treaty of Versailles was a bad deal for Germany but its hard to believe that any German government could’ve done much better. And harder yet to believe that fighting on could’ve produced better results.

But there you go, the Universe is filled with bad ideas topedoed in meetings, bad plans tossed in the round file, bad paths not taken. But this isn't the stuff of hagiography, especially in our "just do it" culture. Think of the last movie you saw where the main character navigated his way to victory through hard work and the steady rejection of crazy schemes.

Walking away from the table with containable losses is never inspirational.