Cut and Run or Trim and Trot?

Don't bother to look for the words "win" or "victory" in any of the Democrats' new proposals for Iraq. They aren't there because those concepts aren't part of the Dems' thinking. That we lose the war is their foundation and it's only a question of how and when. The Dems have decided that the Iraqis can be left on their own - now - regardless of the consequences.

Democratic Party leaders apparently can't grasp the fact that while most Americans don't like the way the president is handling the war, the public is also disgusted with Democrats' failure to come up with a better plan to win, and not just another plan to retreat. People such as Howard Dean and Harry Reid are impervious to the thought that Americans see the cut-and-run crew as nothing more than a stomach-turning reprise of the Dem antiwar protesters of the Vietnam era. The cut-and-run crowd got a new name last Tuesday: They're "ACE Democrats" in the words of retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerny - "ACE" having nothing to do with shooting down enemy aircraft. Instead, in McInerny's formulation it's an acronym for giving "Aid and Comfort to the Enemy."

The ACE Dems have been out in force with John Kerry and Jack Murtha - the Dems' crazy uncle who lives in the attic - to argue for "redeploying" (also known as "withdrawing") all our troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Last week Kerry's proposal was brought to a senate vote - over his own objection - and defeated by a huge margin. Murtha has been shouting for our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq immediately and redeployed to somewhere in the region where a fast-reaction force could still come to the Iraqis' aid. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, Murtha suggested that American troops could be pulled out of Iraq and redeployed to Okinawa where, presumably, Scotty from Star Trek would be able to beam them instantly the 5,500 miles across China to reinforce Iraqis under fire.

Cut and run isn't selling. So what can the Dems do? Repackage it, of course. Now we have Carl Levin's version which isn't "cut and run." It's "trim and trot."

Democrats should thank their lucky stars for Carl Levin. Smarter and savvier than the Murtha/Pelosi crowd, neither a boring Kerry nor a glam guy like John Edwards, Levin is the jolly old uncle of liberal disarmament. He's made a career of opposing ballistic missile defense - something he needs to be reminded of as Kim Jong-il's missile is readied for launch. And unlike some Democrats, when Levin proposes a new "policy" for Iraq, he is taken seriously. That is unfortunate, because his proposals, though more subtle, are just as clearly aimed at losing the war.

Revealed Monday, Levin's proposal - an amendment to the 2007 defense appropriations bill and co-sponsored Jack Reed of Rhode Island - is a lawyerly document that doesn't cast in stone a date for American forces to withdraw from Iraq. Instead, it reaches judgments and expresses the non-binding "sense of Congress" on what should follow from them. Among the judgments are: that sectarian violence has surpassed the insurgency and terrorism as the main threat to security in Iraq; and that the "open-ended" commitment of American troops is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis taking responsibility for their own security.

From those judgments, Levin's proposal demands that the president, "...submit to Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated dates for a continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq..." In plain English, Levin's proposal - lacking the courage to schedule firm dates to cut and run from Iraq - demands that the president set those dates. There is no more dangerous or wrongheaded idea than scheduled dates for withdrawal. That Levin demands the president set them is no less dangerous or wrong than if Levin had less slyly set the dates himself. Even with that, the Levin proposal isn't finished.

Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) has long advocated a "regional" peace conference in which Iraq's peaceful neighbors - Syria, Iran and such - could participate in deciding Iraq's fate. The Levin proposal adopts this idea, and adds something that should arouse even the most somnolent survivors of the Vietnam era.

South Vietnam might have survived but for two facts. First, we cut and ran, leaving our South Vietnamese allies unready to deal with the North Vietnamese invasion that followed. And, when we could at least have tried to sustain South Vietnam with shipments of military equipment, Congress denied funding and clamped the pipeline shut. Now Levin wants to do the same to Iraq.

In Levin's usual lawyerly way, he wants to cut off funding for military aid to Iraq. The Levin proposal says, "...during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a nonmilitary effort to actively support reconstruction, governance and a durable political solution in Iraq." (emphasis added). Again, translating from Levinese, this means Congress will refuse to fund military aid to Iraq just like it refused to fund military aid to South Vietnam after American troops were pulled out. And that cutoff of military aid is intended to have the same result in the Middle East as it did in Southeast Asia.

Why, when the Democrats' best minds are focused intently on the war, can't they come up with even one idea that is clearly calculated to produce victory in Iraq and in the wider war? It's depressingly simple. Though they wore the Clinton Cloak for a decade, they're still the party of George McGovern. McGovern said that as president he'd go to North Vietnam on his knees if it would end the war. His disciples will have to go elsewhere: Tehran, Damascus and Beijing.