Don't Panic
The case against fleeing Iraq. Plus New Jersey's Senate race and more.

Monday, October 30, 2006 12:01 A.M. EST

Paul Gigot: This week on "The Journal Editorial Report," Henry Kissinger on the dangers of premature withdrawal from Iraq. Plus, will the furor over Iraq in Washington help or hurt the chances of success in Baghdad? We'll debate what it will take to win the war. And in New Jersey, a Republican challenger runs against corruption, while the Democratic incumbent runs against President Bush. Those topics, plus our weekly "Hits and Misses," but first these headlines.

Gigot: We're having a national debate on Iraq and particularly the question of withdrawal, U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Do you think that if the United States withdrew from Iraq early next year, that is at a relatively early date, there would be beneficial or negative consequences for the U.S. strategic position in the Middle East and the world?

Kissinger: If we withdrew abruptly?

Gigot: If we withdrew abruptly.

Kissinger: I think it would have the gravest consequences for our international position. It would produce a civil war inside Iraq. It would magnify the civil war inside Iraq. It--there would be no assurance that some region would not turn into a Taliban region. It would mean that the most radical militia are the most likely ones to prevail. And it would mean that all the surrounding countries, unable to adjust to this thing quickly, would be unable to do it without strong American support, would be in an impossible position in planning their own future or in creating some grouping as a counterweight. So a rapid, abrupt withdrawal, I think, would be a catastrophe.

Gigot: It would be interpreted within the region, in particular, as a significant strategic defeat for American interests.

Kissinger: In the last week, I talked to two senior people from the Gulf. And they thought it was unimaginable that the United States would withdraw quickly, especially in this abrupt manner. Of course, if we could--if certain stabilizing events evolve inside Iraq, and/or if we can create a grouping of Sunni countries around Iraq, then it might be possible to look at this question again. And then one can think of negotiation with other--with, say, Iran and Syria. But unless we have some real assets that are on our side of an equation, no negotiation can succeed.

Gigot: Some people in the American debate, who favor a timetable for withdrawal, or a date certain--Sens. Biden, for example, Carl Levin among others--say, Look, if we set that timetable, if we tell them, in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki's government--you only have a certain amount of time to do what needs to be done, to make those hard decisions on political compromise, on disarming militias, for example, that that timetable will give them more incentive to make those hard decisions.

Kissinger: Well, that is based on the assumption that the reason these decisions aren't being made is because Maliki doesn't want to make them. Or that if he made them, he couldn't enforce them. And I don't think either condition is exactly accurate. For one thing, Maliki has been put in, in part, with the support of the Sadr militia. So before he can turn on the Sadr militia, if that were to be his inclination along the road, he would have to get some freedom of maneuver, and one would have to build up a national army that he controls, that he can then use against the militia. I have not heard any of our people claim that we now have a national army that if Maliki gave the order, would be capable of doing this.

Gigot: So until we build up and train that national army so that it could take over without us being there, leaving or setting a date to leave would send a signal of lack of resolve and the lack of ability on his government to--

Kissinger: We have to agree domestically on certain criteria that, in our heart, we know need to be filled, if we don't just want to turn withdrawal into a way for us to disengage, let the situation turn into chaos, after which we'd still have to pick up the pieces.

We have seen in Lebanon that some of--how suddenly the Middle East can erupt. Now collapse in Iraq would be incendiary for almost all of the countries in the region. Plus it would encourage the radical elements in every Islamic movement in countries from Indonesia to Central Europe. So we have to be willing to face these consequences. I'm not happy with the present situation. I know, and I have argued for years, that certain mistakes were being made.

Gigot: Sure.

Kissinger: But what we should try to do now is to come together and to see what is needed to avoid, at least, the worst outcome and the combination of a radicalized area, which has huge oil resources, together with a demonstration of American failure, and then suddenly giving up a yearlong--an effort that has gone on for years.

Gigot: All right, Dr. Kissinger, thanks so much for being here.

Gigot: When we come back, what will it take to win the war in Iraq? Plus a fierce Senate battle in New Jersey may be the best Republican chance to gain a seat on Election Day. Our panel weighs in on those topics and our "Hits and Misses" of the week when "The Journal Editorial Report" continues.

Joining the panel this week, Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor Dan Henninger, as well as Wall Street Journal editorial board members Jason Riley and Rob Pollock.

Rob, quite the spectacle this week in Washington, everybody in something of a panic on Iraq. Democrats piling on for their own political reasons. Some Republicans running away from the president for their own political reasons. You know people in Iraq. You have sources there. You've been there. Is this panic warranted by the situation on the ground there?

Pollock: No. I think it's way overblown. I think the violence we are seeing is very predictable. Look, the insurgents read the U.S. political calendar. They are trying to influence the election here in the United States. The other factor is, part of the reason U.S. casualties is up over the past month is because the U.S. is finally doing more of what it takes to win in terms of moving more troops into Baghdad and going on the offensive in cities like Ramadi.

More broadly, there is this totally false perception here in the United States that everything is chaos, there is no functioning government south of Kurdistan, in the words of some pundits. Look, this is just nonsense. More than a million Iraqi civil servants go to work every day and get their paychecks. The army and the police forces are growing, not only in size but in effectiveness. You know, look, the bottom line is millions of Iraqis have turned out in two elections and a constitutional referendum to say, Look, we want the democracy you're trying to give us.

Gigot: All right.

Pollock: That sounds pretty good to me.

Riley: We have 140,000 troops in Iraq, and we still haven't taken Baghdad, which we have been trying to do since August. Desertion rates in the Iraqi army are way above what they should be. Many soldiers are refusing to be deployed in certain areas outside of their home areas, particularly in places like Anbar province, where the Sunni insurgents are holed up.

Maliki is the third prime minister since 2004, when Iraq took their sovereignty back. All of them, his predecessors, including him, have promised to do something about this sectarian violence, and they have not moved against it. I don't think that the American people are down on the war because they are being--because of the PR problem on the part of the administration. I think there are real problems on the ground that they're responding to.

Gigot: Are you saying that we should withdraw? Or what are you--

Riley: No, no, no, I don't think we should withdraw. And withdrawing prematurely, as we just heard Kissinger say, would be disastrous. But I do think that more pressure needs to be put on the Iraqi government to take on the sectarian violence, like Bush said he wants to do.

Gigot: You talked to the president this week, Dan, and Vice President Cheney, and they both made a couple points about the Maliki government.

Henninger: Yeah, their main point was that this is a sovereign government--it's a sovereign nation, that the Maliki government has got to make the decisions on oil--sharing oil revenues, on the constitution and the other compromises. And it is their decision to make.

Both were pressed to say whether you are leaning on them and telling them what to do. And they said no, the Maliki government has to make this decision. And they also said it is only five months old. And the Shiites, which have been repressed for over 30 years, are just learning how to do politics.

All of that's true. But I will say this. As we have argued on this program many times before, they should have been forming a government early on, right after the war. They should have been giving these people the experience in politics that they've just been gaining in the last five months.

Gigot: What about this question of a timetable? Putting pressure on Iraq to say, by a date certain, you must do certain things. Does that enhance the ability of the Maliki government to make the decisions on disarming the militias and other things that they have to make? We know they have to make those decisions. Does it help or hurt to have us saying we're out of here if you don't make them?

Pollock: I'm not sure that it does because, look, these people--

Gigot: You're not sure that it does help?

Pollock: I'm not sure that it does help. Because, look, both on the Sunni, and the Shiite side especially, these people are walking way out on a political limb to make these compromises that they're being asked to make. And what are they going to think if we tell them, Look, we're getting ready to pull out of here, and if the bad guys come after you after you make the compromise, you are on your own. I don't think it does help.

Riley: But American support cannot be unconditional. And Maliki's government has to realize that.

Gigot: But the--do you think you can fault the president for not predicting and setting--preparing the American people for what, as Rob points out, I think, correctly, is this inevitable pre-election violence? The insurgents know they are going to try to influence the American calendar--political calendar. The president knew that that was going to happen. And yet, in a way, Washington is sort of acting like it's taken by surprise by this violence.

Henninger: I don't think they should be surprised at all. The president is right. It is hard to do what they are doing over there. What they really need is an effective police function. They need a police force that can control civil order in Baghdad, as is true in every city in the world. But to have that, you need the police and the army being able to identify a unified government, something worth fighting for, right? What they have now is a government in formation. I think once they reach that point, you'll see the security come.

Gigot: We need patience by the American public to make sure that happens.

Henninger: Absolutely, you're going to need patience.

Gigot: All right, Dan, thank you. We'll be back after this short break.

Coming up next, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez is the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent this year. That, and our "Hits and Misses" of the week when "The Journal Editorial Report" continues.

Announcer: Bob Menendez believes sometimes you just have to break the law. Is that why he brought a convicted cocaine trafficker with him to the Senate for his swearing in? Or why he used his office to do favors for imprisoned mobsters? Or why he wants to give your Social Security money to illegal aliens? Or why he is under federal criminal investigation?

Gigot: Meanwhile, Menendez is trumpeting his opposition to the Iraq war and to President Bush.

Male announcer: Big issues, big differences.

Female announcer: The Iraq war.

Male announcer: Bob Menendez voted against Bush's war.

Female announcer: Tom Kean Jr. would still vote for it.

Male announcer: Privatizing Social Security.

Female announcer: Bob Menendez helped stop Bush.

Male announcer: Kean Jr. voted for it.

Female announcer: Protecting choice.

Male announcer: Menendez stood up to Bush's antichoice justices.

Female announcer: Kean Jr. supported them.

Gigot: Jason, can Menendez really--Sen. Menendez really rap the Iraq war against Tom Kean Jr. when he wasn't in the Senate to vote for it, whereas some of the people supporting him, like John Kerry, did vote for it, even though they're now against it?

Riley: I think he can and probably because this is New Jersey. Menendez is largely banking on discontentment with Bush in the state. It's a fairly liberal state that Kerry won in '04 and Bush lost. And it seems to be working to some effect. Recent polls show that some 60% of Menendez voters don't support him because of his character or his views on positions. They support him as a rebuke to Bush. So it's having some effect.

Gigot: But Menendez was not the choice of a lot of Democrats outside the state. He was appointed by Gov. Jon Corzine, and a lot of Democrats, like Chuck Schumer, the head of the Senatorial Campaign Committee, were worried because of his background in Hudson County, which is the promised land for federal prosecutors, Dan?

Henninger: Yeah, that's where you make your bones as a federal prosecutor. I think guys like Schumer were right. If they had nominated someone like Congressman Rob Andrews, I think he'd be winning in a runaway, quite frankly.

New Jersey has a real big self-image problem. They don't expect much from their politicians at all. But Menendez is, I think, on the right track. You know, New Jersey took a big hit on September 11. I used to live in Ridgewood, N.J., a town of about 35,000 people. Over 30 people died on 9/11 there. So I think they are a little bit depressed about the war. But at the same time, they really feel upset about the image of corruption that the state has. And they're going to have to make a choice between those two things. I don't think these voters are happy campers.

Gigot: Let's take a look at another Senate race, in Minnesota, where an ad from a Republican, Mark Kennedy, is running. And he's handling the Iraq war in a very different way. Let's see if we can take a look at that.

Kennedy: None of us like war. And we've made some mistakes in Iraq. But we're facing an enemy that must be defeated. Leaving Iraq now will create a breeding ground for new attacks on America. That's the harsh reality. My opponent says the answer is diplomacy. But you can't negotiate with people who want to kill you. I'm Mark Kennedy. Securing the peace is a lot harder than wishing for it.

Gigot: Rob, what do you think of that ad? I think it's very impressive, myself, and it addresses the Iraq war straight on in a way that doesn't run from it.

Pollock: Well, exactly. Look, it could have been a little bit stronger explaining why it was right for us to go in, in the first place. But it is awfully refreshing to see a Republican who's not running away from the war. Because frankly, you can't run away from the war. That is the big issue.

Gigot: Bill Frist was in the--the Senate majority leader was in New Hampshire saying Republicans should talk about something else. How can you talk about something else?

Riley: Well, in New Jersey, Menendez has succeeded in putting Kean on his heels. I mean, Kean has called for Rumsfeld to resign. He said, Well, I would have still gone in, but it's been a disaster. It's been a fiasco. So a contrast in ways to run.

Henninger: A very tough state to run in, though: 20% union, 30% of the state is foreign-born, 40% of Hudson County is Hispanic. Kean has to overcome an awful lot to beat a Democratic candidate.

Gigot: Do you know how many politicians that the U.S. attorney, Christopher Christie has indicted or convicted in the four years he's been in this job? Ninety-nine. There are more politicians in jail than there are in the state Legislature, almost. I mean, if you can't run against corruption in that state and win, you can't do it anywhere in the country.

All right. We have to take one more break. When we come back, our "Hits and Misses" of the week.

Item one, Starbucks saturates the market--Dan?

Henninger: Yeah, Starbucks coffee shops really do seem to be everywhere. In fact, I once thought you could make a good New Yorker cartoon in which you had a city street with every building, along both sides of the street, Starbucks coffee shops. Guess what? It could happen. Starbucks has now announced that they're going to put more coffee shops in cities. For instance, they could have a Starbucks on the other side of the street. You could you have a Starbucks on the same block. You could have two Starbucks in the same building. This is just an amazing phenomenon. Apparently, when people want a cup of coffee now, they think wherever their eye should fall, there should be a Starbucks. And it seems to be coming true. Obviously, this is a hit.

Gigot: All right, Dan, thanks. Next, a miss for the Secure Fence Act. Jason?

Riley: Actually this is two misses. First of all, the fence will do nothing about the 11 million illegal aliens already in the country. And any policy prescription that doesn't address them is really ducking the real issue.

But secondly, we have passed security bill after security bill after security bill. I think is going to be something like the sixth one in a decade. Yet illegal immigration continues to increase in this country, which you think would argue for a change of tactic, not more of the same. And a 700-mile fence along a 2,000-mile border is more of the same.

Gigot: Is that going to help--that issue going to help Republicans on one seat--win one seat this year?

Riley: We'll see. We'll see. Maybe. And some border states, in Arizona, maybe.

Gigot: All right.

And finally, Michael J. Fox weighs in on the stem cell debate. Rob?

Pollock: Yes, Paul, the actor is intervening in, I think, several U.S. Senate races now on the side of Democratic candidates who favor embryonic stem-cell research, saying that the Republican opponents are blocking the research that promises to cure his Parkinson's disease.

Look, I don't doubt his sincerity on the issue, as some of his critics do. But I think he could be a little bit better informed. I think, if he looked more carefully at the issue of how to get medical progress, he would find out that probably Democratic policies, like putting price controls on drugs and making FDA regulation even more onerous than it already is, is probably a bigger threat to the kind of medical progress that's going to save him than any kind of federal policy on stem-cell funding.

Gigot: And those price controls are on the agenda first thing, if Democrats--

Pollock: First 100 hours, says Nancy Pelosi.

Gigot: All right. Thanks, Rob.

That's it for this week's edition of "The Journal Editorial Report." Thanks to Dan Henninger, Jason Riley and Rob Pollock. I'm Paul Gigot. Thanks to all of you for watching. And we hope to see you right here next week.