A week of surprises related to the war in Iraq

President Bush's surprise visit to Iraq Tuesday was followed by a political development that just days earlier would have been equally surprising: Republicans this fall will be seeking re-election based on a renewed commitment to prosecuting the war in Iraq to its successful conclusion -- however long and whatever that may take.
The president's trip to visit Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad was a surprise to all but a handful of presidential aides and two members of the Bush Cabinet.
The trip was seen as a bold move, and by any definition it was. The Republican strategy is equally bold, given that until the killing last week of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's commander on the ground in Iraq, public support for the war had been steadily declining. Al-Zarqawi's death, coupled with Bush's dramatic trip and al-Maliki's ability to establish a cabinet after six months of wrangling, has given support for the war a boost in recent days.
A great show
For nearly an hour Wednesday, Bush put on a masterful performance in a Rose Garden press conference. He made several references to the need to win the war in Iraq and to the base political motives of the war's opponents -- as if either side wants to lose or as if both sides aren't playing politics.
"There's an interesting debate in the Democrat Party about how quick to pull out of Iraq," Bush said Wednesday. "Pulling out of Iraq before we accomplish the mission will make the world a more dangerous place. It's bad policy. I know it may sound good politically."
Of course, it is clear that Republicans have now decided that talk of pulling out of Iraq does not sound good politically. Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman has already sent an e-mail to 15 million supporters asking them to reject "craven, politically motivated demands for instant withdrawal."
Ed Gillespie, a former party chairman and a key White House adviser, concedes that three years of war in Iraq have damaged the president's approval rating, but says that given a choice between Democrats' uncertainty and Bush's firmness, "that choice favors us."
All wars are political, but this one, because it was a war of choice by this administration, is especially so. The Pentagon dispelled any lingering doubts of that when it distributed a 74-page "debate prep book" on Capitol Hill, filled with ready-made answers for criticism of the war.
"We cannot cut and run," the Pentagon battle plan says at one point, parroting language that Republicans routinely use to disparage any Democrat who suggests the war was a mistake from which the nation should extricate itself.
Hapless opposition
Clearly, Democrats don't help themselves when they present simplistic proposals for withdrawing troops by a date-certain. Setting a pull-out date would be foolhardy. But the administration should have to establish benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government that will lead to withdrawal of American troops, now numbering 127,000.
The administration should also be more forthcoming about its anticipated cost for pursuing this war. It has already extracted more than $300 billion from the treasury -- every dollar appropriated as an emergency measure, off-budget and added to the deficit.
The cost of 2,500 American lives and more than 8.500 seriously wounded is incalculable.
Yet while Congress ought to be demanding that the administration provide its targets, its goals and its expectations, Republicans in both Houses have used parliamentary maneuvers to stifle debate.
In the House, Republican leaders scheduled a debate on the war, but crafted the resolution in such a way that Democrats would either have to vote against "supporting the troops" or vote for the Republican definition of the war as a vital component in the "global war against terror." No amendments were permitted.
The irony, of course, is that such backroom shenanigans are being done in the name of bringing the wonders of democracy to Iraq.