IMPEACH BUSH

We have come to the painful conclusion that Iraq is a lost cause. Further expenditure of blood, lives and treasure will not lead to victory.

Though President Bush seems psychologically incapable of the act, it is time for everyone else in the United States to recognize the inevitable: The occupation of Iraq is an utter, irredeemable failure. We cannot win there militarily or politically.

Further expenditure of blood, lives and treasure will gain the United States nothing. Nor will it gain anything for the Iraqi people, who have seen only chaos and bloodshed from this intervention.

Initial support

We don't come to this position lightly. Persuaded by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's United Nations presentation, The Roanoke Times Editorial Board supported the invasion of Iraq -- though editorials even then warned of likely chaos following a military victory if necessary post-invasion resources were not committed.

The administration did not commit those resources, and it bungled the occupation beyond anyone's imagination.

And the weapons of mass destruction Powell warned so persuasively about? They didn't exist.

Still, we advised against retreat. Toppling Saddam Hussein had unleashed chaos. Under Powell's "we broke it, we bought it" doctrine, the United States had a moral obligation to provide some semblance of security to ordinary Iraqis caught up in a burgeoning civil war.

Grave consequences

As the violence deepened, we argued that the consequences of withdrawal would be too grave. A continued American presence was needed to keep the chaos in Iraq from spreading to the entire region. A power vacuum in Iraq could create another Afghanistan, a safe haven for terrorists to plot against the world.

Those vital concerns remain, but they must be weighed against other realities. America's military is strained to the breaking point. The nation cannot indefinitely maintain current troop levels, much less sustain President Bush's surge, short of adopting a politically unrealistic military draft. The toll on soldiers and their equipment is mounting.

Real questions are already being raised about how well the United States could respond to a new military crisis. Extend the occupation by two years -- or five years or 10 years -- and the nation's military preparedness could degrade to the point that only astronomical sums of money and effort could restore it.

What would that time gain? All evidence leads to the conclusion that, at best, American forces can only temporarily hold back the blood bath of an all-out civil war. There is no indication that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is capable of -- or committed to -- unifying Iraq's bitter factions.

President Bush has been utterly incapable of articulating a clearly defined and achievable objective that would constitute victory.

Unless the American people are willing to support a generational commitment to Iraq -- along with the trillions of dollars and reinstitution of the draft required to sustain it -- our continued presence there only delays the inevitable day of reckoning.

The logical course is clear: The United States should start planning now for an orderly withdrawal of troops.

Such a withdrawal will be neither easy nor safe.

As National Journal reporters wrote in a recent essay, "It's almost impossible for the military to seriously plan for a contingency -- withdrawal -- that the commander-in-chief won't even discuss."

This is where the real world collides with the political world. As Democrats proved last week, they don't have the votes to override Bush's veto of a forced timetable for withdrawal. But a growing contingent of Republican lawmakers are voicing criticism of the status quo.

Political reality

"Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told the Los Angeles Times. "Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don't see that as viable."

Democrats then, with their slim margins in Congress, must work with Republicans like Collins to achieve what is achievable, rather than what is preferable.

A timetable for withdrawal is preferable. But genuine benchmarks imposed on the Iraqi government -- with actual consequences for not meeting them -- might be all that is achievable.

There are many possibilities, but those benchmarks should include:

n Finally ending the shameful interference from the Iraqi government in action against Shiite extremists.

n Building ethnically diverse fighting forces throughout Iraq to ensure that government forces don't become sectarian death squads.

n Implementing local and regional elections that could bring the Sunni population into the political process.

n Eliminating the government fraud, waste and abuse that the Government Accountability Office identified as a primary obstacle to stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

Of course, other benchmarks have been set in the past. Some -- ratification of a constitution, election of a permanent government -- have been met, but were less effective than hoped. Others have been ignored, which is what happens benchmarks when have no consequences.

The new benchmarks should mark measurable progress that could make a difference, with clear deadlines for achieving that progress and clear penalties for failure.

One of those penalties for failure must be the loss of American military support.

It would take remarkable statesmanship to convince enough Republicans to join with Democrats in forcing this ultimatum on President Bush, who seems determined to wait this out so he and his apologists can try to transfer blame onto a subsequent administration.

But if congressional leadership can manage that feat, then perhaps America can begin to see a way out of this intractable mess.

Otherwise, there will be no choice except to wait for Jan. 20, 2009.

This nation can't afford the delay.