With the Congressional elections behind us, and the Baker-Hamilton commission's report published at last, the stage would now seem set for a major national debate on the central question: Should the United States continue to seek "victory" in Iraq (however that is defined), or withdraw its forces from that country and leave it to whatever its fate may be?
President Bush, who (it must always be remembered) still has two more years in office and will continue to be commander in chief of the armed forces, stands firmly for the first option. Various critics, most notably a number of Democratic members of Congress like John Murtha, have adopted what certainly sounds very much like the second. In between stands a huge segment of public and political opinion that actively dislikes the way the war has been prosecuted to date but is certainly not committed to cutting and running. Is there any hope for a compromise?
The trouble is that any compromise will sooner or later favor one or the other of the two polar positions. If the compromise permits the United States to continue to maintain a significant military presence in Iraq and pursue the goal of prevailing there, it will amount to a decision in support of the Bush option. If, on the other hand, it furthers the goal of sooner or later abandoning Iraq, it will constitute a de facto endorsement of the Murtha option.
What are the Democrats, as a whole, willing to accept? Most of them certainly don't want to see the Middle East collapse into chaos, with all that would mean for the United States, Europe, and the world, let alone a future Democratic president. There is likely, therefore, to be considerable debate within the Democratic Party -- quite possibly continuing into the 2008 presidential contest -- over how far to compromise with Bush.
As for the American people, don't believe for a moment that a majority of them favor cutting and running. Their trouble is that they dislike the way things have been going in Iraq for the last three years (and who can blame them?). If this is the best we can do, they seem to be thinking, then it might be better to stop doing it. At the same time, they know very well that our enemies in the Middle East are serious and highly dangerous, and are not likely to stop their jihad against the West, and especially the United States, just because we settle for defeat in Iraq. A majority of the public, therefore, is currently unhappy but undecided.
William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and author of How to Win Arguments .
Be the first to read William Rusher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Son Of Hamas Founder: My Father's Movement 'Doesn’t Care About The Lives Of Palestinians' | Matt Vespa
Hillary Clinton: Hamas Operates in Civilian Areas Because Gaza is a Small Place or Something | Katie Pavlich
Emails: Insurers Warned of Big Premium Increases, Requested and Received Expanded 'Bailout' | Guy Benson