What, no "Spirit of Compromise?"

Well, the new era of compromise and cooperation that the Democrats promised us has lasted less than 2 weeks. The Republicans have not helped as much as they might have, either.

While President Bush prepared a revised strategy for Iraq that barely hinted at some actions that might lead to compromise, all of the Bush-bashers prepared to shoot the plan down, and to scream for rapid withdrawal and specific timelines.

Those who repeatedly call President Bush a liar are themselves lying. They said they would try to work out compromises, but instead, they simply denounce the plan. It also seems to me that if President Bush strongly believes that a temporary surge in troop strength is the solution most likely to be effective, he should offer his critics some movement in their direction.

For example, instead of saying that we will tell the Iraqi government that "our commitment is not open-ended," President Bush could offer a sort of time line, not for our troops, but for the Iraqi government. He could have his experts estimate a reasonable time it would take to secure Bagdad. Then he could propose to Mr. Maliki that the Iraqi forces, with increased assistance from ours, secure Bagdad within, say three months of that estimated date. He could further offer that, if the goal were achieved on time, we would commence a gradual withdrawal of our forces; but if the Iraqi government could not secure Bagdad within that time frame, we would commence a rapid withdrawal. Adding something of this nature to his plan would constitute a step by the President in the direction his critics claim they want to go.

The fact that neither Republicans nor Democrats have offered such a proposal indicates that the concept of compromise is a sham.

I think that no compromise would be acceptable to the Democrats. If they agree to a compromise and the Bush administration is successful in Iraq, the Democrats have less chance of gaining power in 2008. They want to see a Republican failure in Iraq, regardless of the future consequences to the United States, or to Iraq. They will deny this, of course. But their actions, or lack of actions, speak louder than their words.

I have yet to hear one of these critics propose a plan for success, or even a plan with well-defined consequences. The reason is that they do not have one. They have not tried to develop one because their objective is not an Iraq solution, or a middle east solution. Their objective is a Bush failure. So, instead of proposing alternatives, the critics are content to attack the plan, attack the planners, attack, investigate.

People who have never been to Iraq, who have never studied military strategy or history are saying that Iraq is a total loss. They base this assessment not on hard facts or data, but on their emotional desire to get out of an ugly situation or to destroy a president they detest. Or, they are saying it because of what they read or heard from media persons who are equally ignorant and biased.

In another master stroke of understatement, President Bush also alluded to the need to change the "rules of engagement." We have shown ourselves as incapable of dealing with the Maliki government as we are incapable of dealing with our half-ally Musharaff in Pakistan. Maliki must be made to understand that he is required to honor his commitments to us, and that he must not show favoritism to criminals of any sect. As it stands today, a telephone call from a Maliki cohort results in the release of a captured (Shiite) terrorist, no matter how serious his offense. Bagdad will not be secure until the thugs are either killed or jailed. It's a huge mistake to turn a war into a political game. The radicals and the private militiamen must be disarmed and brought to justice. Those in government who aid and abet them should also be called to task for their complicity.

Additionally, the flow of arms to the insurgents from Iran and Syria must be cut off completely. President Bush is right that this has to be accomplished on Iraqi soil. To do this in parallel with securing Bagdad probably requires more that the 20,000 additional troops proposed in the plan. I was surprised that the proposed number was not larger. Even if the 20,000 is sufficient, a larger number could have been reduced as part of a compromise.

But the period of cooperation and compromise among Democrats and Republican is over. Actually, it never really began.