A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

There is a great deal to report on the Iraq issue. Shall we begin?

Yes. Yes, I think we shall.

1. While I am a supporter of the surge, I certainly think that the United States could do with more troops in Iraq--if only to help generate security outside of Baghdad. That's why I note this with interest:

The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.

The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq, is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty for troops already there.

The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps arriving and departing combat brigades.

Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000 now to more than 200,000 -- a record-high number -- by the end of the year.

The numbers were arrived at by an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst Newspapers.

"It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it," said retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. "I think they would be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this."

Actually, I think that part of the reason we have had a deterioration of support regarding the reconstruction effort is that the Bush Administration has indeed talked a great deal less about the need to see the effort through, and thus ceded the rhetorical ground to opponents of the reconstruction process. If I have a criticism of the President on this issue, it is that he is not doing more to rally support behind the reconstruction effort in public speeches so as to give General Petraeus enough time to implement his counterinsurgency plan. Time continues to be Petraeus's enemy, and the new surge notwithstanding, the Administration is not doing as much as it could or should in order to make time an ally for the reconstruction effort.

2. Beyond the surge, as David Ignatius reports, the Administration is seeking to ensure that Iraqi forces are trained and equipped . . . with the understanding that political reconciliation will have to take a back seat until training and equipping are achieved. In terms of prioritizing, I agree with this. At the same time, it should be the expectation of the Administration that once training and equipping has proceeded substantially, it will turn to political reconciliation with great zeal. Hopefully, the presence of a more secure domestic situation in Iraq will help matters on that score.

3. Bob Kerrey is about to become very unpopular with his fellow Democrats:

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

Bravo for Kerrey--a member of the 9/11 Commission--for so plainly stating the case. Would that more people in his party shared his courageous views.

4. Oh wait. As Yoda would say, "There is another":

Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, says his disagreement with the Democrats over the Iraq war won't prevent him from working with his former party. For now.

``I hope the moment doesn't come that I feel so separated from the caucus'' that he decides to shift allegiance to the Republicans, he said in an interview. Asked what Democratic actions might cause such a break, he invoked Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous 1964 definition of pornography: ``I'll know it when I see it.''

The 65-year-old lawmaker is the margin of difference in the Democrats' 51-49 control of the Senate. A switch to the Republicans, which he won't rule out, would create a 50-50 tie that would allow Vice President Dick Cheney to cast a deciding vote for Republican control.

Lieberman has ``gone from being dispensable to essential for the Democrats,'' said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Lieberman said he already has seen much he doesn't like from the Democrats, particularly Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to co-sponsor, and then allow a vote last week on, legislation cutting off war funding by March.

Lieberman has been one of the few people preventing an utter and complete collapse of the reconstruction effort. He deserves high praise for that and in an ideal world, the Democratic Caucus would follow his example. If they refuse to, however, Lieberman can continue to ensure that their wishes are not ratified into law.

5. I've saved the best for last:

In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.

The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.

While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Democrats in both houses are expected to seek other opportunities to challenge Bush's handling of the unpopular conflict later this year.

Democratic officials stressed the legislation was subject to change. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss provisions before a planned presentation to members of the party's rank and file later in the day.

Democrats in Congress have insisted for months they would not give Bush a blank check for his war policies, and officials said the legislation is expected to include political and military goals for the Iraqi government to meet toward establishment of a more democratic society.

Failure to make progress toward the goals could cost the Iraqis some of the reconstruction aid the United States has promised, although it was not clear whether Democrats intended to give Bush power to order the aid to be spent regardless of progress.

Several officials said it was possible that Democrats would attempt to draft a second bill, to include much of the domestic spending that Bush and congressional Republicans have said they oppose.

Either way, Democratic leaders have said they hope to clear a war spending bill through both houses of Congress and send it to Bush's desk by week's end. They added the intention was to avoid a veto.

This is a tremendous victory for a President who is ostensibly weak and unable to resist the Democratic legislative effort. Then again, as we have seen in recent months, the Democratic legislative effort has run aground. And as pointed out earlier today, the Democratic base must think that the current Congress is little better than the Republican Congress that preceded it.

Which does raise the question: Why have a "faux-Republican" Congress when you might be able to get the real thing in 2008? A great many voters may end up asking themselves that question. And the Democratic base may be so demoralized by Congress's performance come 2008 that they will not be disposed to give a hearty rebuttal in reply.