Some serious questions about Iraq for the serious people …

But the great unanswered -- and largely unasked -- question remains: what do we hope to achieve by delaying the inevitable withdrawal?The answer offered by the White House and the Bidens and McCains is that we'll surge temporarily and at the same time build up the Iraqi army so that it, eventually, can take the lead in fighting the insurgency. But the problem is quite obvious: a majority of the violence in Iraq is being perpetrated by the country's warring militias; about half of the governing United Iraqi Alliance's 140 seats in the Iraqi Parliament are controlled by parties whose power derives from the militias -- you could as accurately say "are controlled by militias" -- the army and security forces, as well as the Interior and Defense ministries are completely infiltrated by Shite militias and it's clear that Iraqi troops' loyalties are not with the central government. Maliki can't go against the militias without toppling his own governing coalition, regardless of what he may or may not wish to do in his heart of hearts.

The serious people should explain what they believe will change in that equation and how. Otherwise, whether we're in Iraq for six more months or six more years, we're effectively training and equipping a lot of soldiers whose loyalty is with the militias, and we're supporting a government that has an abundance of people who are more dedicated to slaughtering Sunnis than to protecting their minority rights. What's going to change that -- more time and a renewed dedication to "Iraqifying" the conflict certainly won't.

On a related note, Joe Biden has said that he believes the administration knows Iraq is lost and that the Bushies are trying to stall until they can hand off the mess to the next president. If that person happens to be a Dem, they'll then have to carry the burden of having conceded defeat.

On one of the Sunday gab-fests, Biden also said that the surge is pointless because a political solution is the only hope for the country -- that there is no military solution. But Biden knows full well that the only option for the U.S. to encourage a political solution would be to engage in a regional diplomatic strategy, and that's been flatly rejected by the administration.

So, Joe Biden: If you know they're not going to do the work that might -- might -- bring about a political settlement, and you know the administration is just trying to foist off their disaster on the next bunch of patsies, then why do you oppose withdrawal? The only logical answer -- given that he's acknowledging that staying can't work under the circumstances -- is that Biden thinks the Dems would fare well running once again in 2008 against an unpopular war that has "Republicans" written all over it. Is that why he's saying that the Congress has no Constitutional authority to stop the war (which any 8th-grade civics student can tell you is nonsense)?