So we get out of Iraq--then what?

By Wes Vernon

So the polls say Americans want us out of Iraq. Of course, the pollster rarely asks his interviewee to think through the consequences of whatever position he or she takes. It's quickie journalism. I remember working newsrooms where some of my colleagues would get all excited and build entire stories on polls, even those of dubious credibility.

Sure, we could pull the troops out of Iraq tomorrow. The question is — what happens then? Think that's not our problem? Think we can just quietly turn tail and withdraw to our shores as we did in Vietnam and forget about it? No consequences?

If the polls were to show 100% of Americans wanted the U.S. out of Iraq, that would not erase the problem of what would come next. We could look the other way and bury our heads in the sand after Vietnam. That won't work this time. If we hightail it out of Iraq, the results will not be pretty.

The irresponsibles

Democrats have had the luxury of tossing verbal darts at President Bush without taking any responsibility. Now that they control Congress, they can cut off the money to fund the troops, and some of the more irresponsible are proposing to do just that.

Some of them, however, are starting to realize that — Duh! — it's not that simple.

Armchair warriors

Congressman John Murtha: Now that this "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Abscam bribery scandal is in the catbird seat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee where his Democrats rule, some responsibility is on his shoulders. It will not do to throw around reckless talk of "re-deploying" the troops to somewhere else — anywhere else — like Okinawa, as he proposed months ago. So now he goes before the Out-of-Iraq caucus of some of his colleagues, and says well — er — uh — "This group here today, they're way ahead of me." (Translation: We need to surrender on the installment plan, so we don't take a political hit for it.)

Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid: Even though he has risen to the top of the ladder as the Senate's Number One, he as much as says his only job is to criticize and obstruct. When asked what alternative he has to the president's Iraq strategy, the Nevada lawmaker says it is not his job to come up with his own plan, because the president is Commander-in-Chief. That argument might be expected of a backbench freshman. But the top man in the Senate thinks his only responsibility is destructive criticism?

Senator Barbara Boxer: Some people are brilliant, but humorless. Others are intellectually challenged, but affable. Boxer is a hybrid of the south end of those two scenarios.

This past week, she delivered a low blow, even by her standards. At a Senate hearing, the Californian made the tacky inference that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was unqualified to make effective decisions on U.S. troops because she is a single woman who's never been married and is not a mother with a child who could be sent into harm's way in Iraq.

Any American son or daughter killed in Iraq or in any other theatre of war is one too many. But in contemplating the more than 3,000 in Iraq in nearly four years, any senator might consider the more than 2,500 killed on a single day in the invasion of Normandy in June of 1945, or the nearly 7,000 GIs lost between February 19, 1945, and March 26, 1945, at Iwo Jima. That latter figure comes to me from columnist colleague and World War II vet Phil Brennan.

So what are the consequences of a bug-out?

None of these critics is willing to address the problem of what will happen if the U.S. does up and leave Iraq before victory is achieved.

Only one such armchair general — a journalistic one — is willing to acknowledge (sort of) that there just might be hell to pay if America precipitously heads for the exit in Iraq. Before we get to that, let's go through the likely scenarios.

If you think the Middle East is a cauldron now...

So what can (or probably will) happen if the U.S. leaves Iraq? The result could be wider war spreading throughout the Middle East, with consequences in terms of the terrorist threat to our own shores, to say nothing of the price of oil skyrocketing to $200 a barrel and the ensuing destruction of our economy.

If the Sunnis and the Shiites go to war against each other, it likely will spread to neighboring countries and possibly throughout the region. Saudi Arabia has let it be known it would move to protect the Sunni population in Iraq, if necessary.

U.S. military officials have told the Wall Street Journal that Jordan may send troops into Iraq's uninhabited desert as a buffer if the chaos in Iraq spins out of control.

The spreading cauldron of settling age-old scores through war could also drag in Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Iran, in fact, could be the greatest beneficiary if sectarian violence leads to the splintering of Iraq. The Iranian government has already been providing help to Iraqi Shiites. Today, Iran is headed by a seemingly mentally-unbalanced dictator who threatens the world with his development of nuclear weapons.

If there's minority uprising in Saudi Arabia and the kingdom there is overthrown by an Islamofascist regime, the result would be far more disastrous to U.S. interests than the violent 1979 revolution in Iran. Today, we have an Iran that threatens the world with nuclear weaponry. Right now, the Western World is alternately shaking its fist and wringing its hands over the situation. Analysts say that unless Iran's government falls into more responsible hands, it is only a matter of time before we face a stark reality too horrible to imagine.

To sum it up...

If we walk away from Iraq, we face the prospect of a strengthened Iran with a half-crazed madman threatening nuclear annihilation, the entire Middle East in flames, as our economy here in the U.S. takes a nightmare nosedive beyond anything even imagined in the Great Depression. America's enemies would have us by the throat. As we've outlined before in this column, the Islamofascists and Marxist regimes the world over are just waiting for the time when this nation is as helpless as Gulliver was when tied down by the Lilliputians. That's when they will move in for the kill.

On top of all that, of course, the "sleeper" cells of terrorists here on our soil would be emboldened. What follows such chaos is almost beyond what any of us wants to contemplate.

In their hearts, even liberals know better

What makes the liberals' attack purely for political gain all the more despicable is that they know full well the consequences. The liberal headquarters at Times Square let the cat out of the bag on January 9.

Under the headline "Past Time to Get Real on Iraq," the New York Times editorialized that the Bush administration should start "winding down America's involvement in this going nowhere war." The whole editorial goes on and on in that vein. Then near the bottom, there is an "Oh, by the way" paragraph that reads as follows:

"Nor can America turn its back on whatever happens to Iraq after it leaves. With or without American troops, a nightmare future for Iraq is a nightmare future for the United States, too, whether it consists of an expanding civil war that turns into a regional war or millions of Iraq's people and its oil fields falling under the tightening grip of a more powerful Iran."

What? Read that paragraph again. Can you imagine the sheer gall of these people? The message: Get out of Iraq, but don't let anything bad happen after you leave. The "Gray Lady" laid bare, with pure breathtaking hypocrisy, the liberal posturing. It's bad if we stay in, but it's bad if we get out and if, once on the outside, we fail to prevent the consequences of the bug-out. That paragraph should be enlarged, framed, and hung in a public square in every city and town in America as a monument to the cheap CYA politics of the irresponsibles — be they elected officials or editorial writers.

Senator John McCain (with whom this column has had some differences in the past) said it best: Members of the "out of Iraq" contingent in Congress have every right — "even an obligation — to debate on this issue," the senator acknowledges, but they also have a responsibility "to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq. Do they not fear Iranian, Saudi, or Turkish involvement in Iraq? A wider regional war? A haven for terrorists? A humanitarian catastrophe? Do they truly believe we can walk from Iraq?"

If the NYT editorial is any indication, the political left does not really believe we can just walk away, but is willing to advocate it if it can advance its agenda of trashing George W. Bush.

This column has cited evidence that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (see Saddam's WMDs: The Russian Connection and the Cover-up — Feb. 20, 2006), but we have also had our doubts about whether the Middle East can be democratized. Aside from those issues, the problem here and now — today — is whether America will do what needs to be done — for its own security, let alone honoring our commitments to others.

As Senator McCain has said, "We were able to walk away from Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back — possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region. I believe that those who disagree with this new policy should indicate what they propose to do if we withdraw and Iraq descends into chaos."

© Wes Vernon