"Aiding the enemies of America"

Apparently, yesterday on CNN's Your World Today, Michael Ware, a correspondent based in CNN's Baghdad bureau, made the statement that "anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, Al Qaeda and Iran. ... [I]n terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies."

I am so tired of hearing about "our enemies" in Iraq, as if the carnage there is all - or even mostly - about us. The fact is that it is not our war to lose. Iraq is in the throes of a multipartite civil conflict, with the U.S. military sometimes playing a peacekeeping role, and sometimes - intentionally or unintentionally - helping one side or another. The U.S. cannot impose a military solution, and there are not enough troops to stabilize (as is often stated as our short-term goal) the capital city. The situation will go on much as it has, with more soldiers and Marines dying every month, and the situation continuing to devolve.

The obvious fact, that no one seems to want to talk about, is that we will have to leave eventually. All the sides in this conflict know this. There is no one with even the slightest understanding of the situation who imagines that the status quo can be maintained for more than a few years. So the canard that "setting a timetable helps our enemies" literally makes no sense. What would they do differently if we circled a date on the calendar and said, "all troops out by (say) August 2008?" Stop killing each other for a year and a half? Kill each other at an even faster rate? What evidence is there to support either idea?

We have exactly two options: end it now, this instant - and engage in an extremely long-term commitment to deal with the consequences of our foolish, murderous actions in Iraq; or spend a few more months or years creating more horror in Iraq and in the souls of more soldiers and Marines before taking the first option anyway.

There are no other options.