A Detached Debate

Have the senators arguing over Iraq war resolutions read the National Intelligence Estimate?

THE ARGUMENTS on Iraq in Washington, as so often in the past, don't seem to have much to do with the realities in Baghdad. The Senate yesterday was debating -- or debating whether to debate -- a fistful of resolutions for and against President Bush's surge of U.S. troops into the capital, with the loudest voices belonging to those senators planning or contemplating a run for president or facing reelection in 2008. Nothing that has been proposed would help in any material way in Iraq; nor is any resolution likely to demoralize the troops or encourage the enemy, as some opponents claim.

Most senators seem to be aiming to position themselves against their domestic competitors -- in the case of Democrats such as Barack Obama or Joseph R. Biden Jr. -- or cover themselves with voters who are angry about the reverses in the war, in the case of Republicans such as Gordon Smith or Susan Collins. The most overtly political posture may be that of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who petulantly called on President Bush and Congress to "end this war" -- whatever that means -- before the next president takes office, presumably so that it will not trouble the administration she hopes to lead.

But what of the actual situation in Iraq? As the horrific bombings in Baghdad over the past few days have all too graphically signaled, it is rapidly getting worse. Sunni insurgents have responded to President Bush's launch of a new counterinsurgency campaign with an offensive aimed at slaughtering as many innocent Shiites as possible. The Iraqi government, meanwhile, is already failing to live up to its commitments under the counterinsurgency plan. As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates acknowledged last week, Iraqi army units that were supposed to arrive in Baghdad by the beginning of this month have shown up with about half of their troops, which "probably isn't good enough." Just four weeks ago, senior administration officials cited the arrival or non-arrival of those troops as a critical test for the new strategy.

These events reinforce the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that was released last week. The unclassified summary of the document has bad news for all sides. It predicts that during the next 12 to 18 months, Iraq's "overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006." It is not optimistic that the surge strategy, which is aimed at providing a space for Iraqi political accords, can work: "Even if violence is diminished . . . Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation. . . ."

Yet the estimate also concludes that coalition troops "remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq" and predicts dire consequences if they are "withdrawn rapidly" during the next 12 to 18 months. Among those are the dissolution of the Iraqi army, open intervention by neighboring countries, and the use of Iraq by al-Qaeda for "increased attacks in and outside the country." "Massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement," says the estimate, "would be probable."

What all this suggests is that, however much Ms. Clinton or other senators might wish it, the war in Iraq will not end before the next president takes office. Mr. Bush's surge is unlikely to produce a breakthrough toward peace; in fact the violence may continue to worsen. All the same, the United States may not be able to withdraw from Iraq without triggering worse consequences than those that might arise from remaining. In short, the country needs a strategy for defending its interests in Iraq for years to come. That perspective, and not the American political calendar, is what Congress ought to be focused on.