David Brooks eviscerates the Democratic timetable for Iraq

David Brooks takes apart Senator Carl Levin's (D-MI) strategy for Iraq in his op-ed column in today's New York Times.

First Brooks sums up what this strategy is: "[Levin argues that] Iraqi leaders have been shirking their duties and it’s time to force them to get serious." How to do that? Via the Democratic timetable resolution, of course, which, as Senator Levin himself said, "will deliver a cold dose of reality to Iraqi leaders.”

"But" as Brooks asks, "does anybody [really] think that Iraqi leaders, many of whom have seen their brothers and children gunned down, need a cold dose of reality delivered from the U.S. Congress? Does anybody buy the Levin model of reality, which holds that Iraqi leaders are rational game theorists who just need to have their incentives rearranged in order to make peace?"

This logic is just plain silly, according to Brooks. As far as he is concerned, there are only two serious positions when it comes to Iraq:

One serious position is heard on the left: that there’s nothing more we can effectively do in Iraq. We’ve spent four years there and have not been able to quell the violence. If the place is headed for civil war, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, and we certainly don’t want to get caught in the middle. The only reasonable option is to get out now before more Americans die.

The second serious option is heard on the right. We have to do everything we can to head off catastrophe, and it’s too soon to give up hope. The surge is already producing some results. Bombing deaths are down by at least a third. Execution-style slayings have been cut in half. An oil agreement has been reached, tribes in Anbar Province are chasing Al Qaeda, cross-sectarian political blocs are emerging. We should perhaps build on the promise of the surge with regional diplomacy or a soft partition, but we certainly should not set timetables for withdrawal.