His own administration may be mired in scandal, but Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley - a staunch Democrat - at least had some impromptu common sense to dispense yesterday regarding the war in Iraq. His comments came at a news conference on a community land trust program to boost availability of affordable housing in Chicago.

As the war in Iraq heats up debate in Washington and produces growing division across the nation, Mayor Richard Daley said Thursday he has staked a middle position on the issue--but it sounded very much like President Bush's. Daley asked whether some people today would have opposed the Civil War, questioning whether it was worth the bloodshed to fight to end slavery. "Were people wrong when they fought Hitler?" he asked. "He didn't do anything against us. He didn't invade the United States."

So Daley, whose son, Patrick, is in the U.S. Army, supports the war in Iraq?
"I didn't say that," the mayor responded. "I support the men and women in the military." But then he added, "We can't just leave the Middle East. If we leave the Middle East, just let's just forget about the Middle East and just walk away from the Middle East. I don't think anybody wants that."

The mayor's comments came in the wake of a call for an American troop withdrawal by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and followed by one day a speech by Bush defending his Iraq strategy. "What I think we are trying to do, some way, is trying to slowly allow Iraq to take full control of their country," the mayor said. And like the Civil War and World War II, Daley said of Iraq, "I don't think it's a quick fix."

Additional, and sensible perspective comes from this Knight-Ridder editorial:

President Bush on Wednesday provided an encouraging forecast for Iraqi democracy and a good summary of the dangers of artificial exit deadlines for American forces. Those dangers are significant: Confusing the Iraqi people, telegraphing weakness to our adversaries, demoralizing U.S. troops and encouraging even more attacks on them.

But Americans have become increasingly skeptical of Bush's self-congratulatory optimism. In addition, his speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy suffered from a fundamental contradiction about our goals in Iraq. The president spent much of his time discussing how the training of additional Iraqi security forces would enable American troops to start withdrawing in the not-too-distant future. As Iraqi forces stand up, he said, U.S. forces will be able to stand down. That has a reassuring ring for war-weary Americans.

Yet toward the end of the speech, Bush spoke as if he intended to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until the last enemy had been killed or captured. "I will settle for nothing less than complete victory," Bush declared, and even went on to draw parallels to World War II. At this point, he seemed to have returned to Texas bravado as military strategy. Let's be realistic. Iraq is not World War II. The American public certainly does not have -- and will never have -- the commitment that it had to total victory over Nazi Germany and expansionist Japan.

As Bush works to win greater public support for his policies in Iraq, he would do well to emphasize the first goal: Protecting and nourishing Iraqi democracy until it can defend itself from internal and external enemies. That job is tough enough....

Here's the National Security Council's Strategy For Victory In Iraq.

Tom Rekdal: Those who have called for an immediate and full withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, though wrong in my judgment, have at least staked out a position that I can understand.

I have no idea what the president is talking about any more. He is not so much wrong as confused and confusing.

What does "victory in Iraq" now mean? Reducing the terrorist threat to a minor nuisance? How do we do that if they are supported (or at least tolerated) by a very large number of Sunni Arabs? Do we kill all of them, too? And just how would we do that? Sunni Arab nationalism has apparently merged with our worst terrorist enemies, and we have no clue as to how to separate them.

What does supporting democracy in Iraq mean, if the Sunni Arab population rejects the entire project? Do we take sides in an increasingly sectarian conflict over control of the country and its resources? How do we know that the side collecting the most votes is the side that will stabilize the country and promote its democratic evolution, rather than seek revenge and promote the interests of our enemies? And how do we know that our own presence is not inflaming the conflict we seek to quell?

Finally, if Iraq is truly the "central battleground" in the war on terror, why would we "stand down as the Iraqis stand up"? Does this make any sense? We will withdraw from the most important front in the war--if that is what it is--and allow its outcome to be determined by an army whose competence is tenuous at best? This is our strategy?

TECHNORATI TAGS: RICHARD DALEY, IRAQ, GEORGE W. BUSH

TO COMMENT: The regular "comment" feature is not in operation. E-mail comments to address under "Contact" on main page masthead, and I'll add them, here.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 2, 2005 12:47 PM