Democrats Ignore Consequences of Failure in Iraq Continue to Support "Slow Bleed" Strategy

Via email:

Over the weekend, key Democrats continued to ignore the devastating consequences of failure in Iraq , which were outlined in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). On Meet the Press, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), author of a Democratic proposal to choke off resources for American troops in combat, said if the United States fails in Iraq:

"It's not going to be any worse than it is now."

But the NIE reaches a very different conclusion. According to Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead, the situation in the Middle East would deteriorate rapidly if American forces are not successful, with al Qaeda using Iraq as a new base of operations:

"If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly ... we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

"If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the [Iraqi Security Forces] would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution; neighboring countries ... might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; [al-Qaeda in Iraq] would attempt to use parts of the country-particularly al-Anbar province-to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq."

Murtha insisted on NBC's Meet the Press:

"I don't see any chance of us winning this militarily."

But in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution criticized the belief that all is lost in Iraq , knocking the "slow-bleed" that would hamstring American troops in harm's way:

"Congress's overall efforts are misguided for one fundamental reason: We cannot yet be sure that the situation in Iraq is totally hopeless. It is indeed bad, very bad... [b]ut there still may be a glimmer of hope -- if not to 'win,' then at least to achieve some minimum level of stability."

Indeed, Iraqis Mohammed and Omar Fadhil (who write the blog Iraq the Model from Baghdad) wrote in the WSJ that in recent weeks "hundreds of militants have been killed, more hundreds arrested, and dozens of weapons caches discovered and destroyed." Efforts are underway to ensure that radical Islamic terrorists who flee Baghdad (whether to Iran , Syria , or somewhere in Iraq ) don't simply regroup elsewhere. As terrorists flee, families are returning to Baghdad and many mosques, previously occupied by terrorists, are being returned to local worshippers.

Even though Democratic Leaders remain supportive of the "slow bleed" strategy proposed by Murtha, it's clear they're divided and confused by the details. No matter what the details are, the Democrats' strategy would leave American troops in harm's way "exposed and unable to succeed" and, according to an article by Jonathan Schanzer, could help al Qaeda grow "in confidence, popularity, and numbers":

"Washington 's antiwar politicians, however, are proving to be the kind of American politicians that al Qaeda grew to count on during its rise in the 1990s. ...

"If the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 led to the growth of al Qaeda, and the U.S withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 invited increasingly deadly attacks, an American retreat from Iraq would likely invite a new wave of violence at levels never before seen."

Will Speaker Pelosi and other Dem Leaders continue to support Murtha's slow-bleed strategy or will they denounce it?