Senate Debates Iraq Withdrawal; Report Shows Al-Qaida Regrouping

JIM LEHRER:

And finally tonight, the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Iraq, Iraq, always Iraq. Mark, first, the Senate vote on withdrawal this week, what do you think it means?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

Well, it means that the momentum continues, Jim. I mean, just to put it in some historical…

JIM LEHRER:

Continues?

MARK SHIELDS:

Continues.

JIM LEHRER:

For withdrawal?

MARK SHIELDS:

For withdrawal. I mean, just a year ago, the Senate voted on withdrawing. Republicans controlled the Senate at the time. It lost 87-13 to withdraw American troops in a year. I mean, now with Harry Reid — I mean, Harry Reid for procedural reason had to vote with the minority in this case to keep the issue open — with him and Tim Johnson, when he is available to return, the senator from South Dakota, you're talking about 54 votes. That's a remarkable, remarkable movement in a year, from 13 to 54, just among Democrats themselves. And one of the senators is gone. One of the 13, Jim Jeffords is no longer in the Senate.

JIM LEHRER:

But still not 60, which was required to stop the debate and to — I mean, in other words, to have the vote?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times:

Right. As Mark says, there's been this year-long momentum, but it has stopped or at least stalled for the time being. And I personally think the Senate will do nothing to change Iraq policy at least for another three or four months.

And that's for a couple of reasons. One, a lot of Republicans who detest where the White House is are furious at Harry Reid. And a colleague of mine wrote a good piece today saying that partisan feeling, rancor in the Senate was already phenomenally high, but now it's extra-phenomenally high. And over this issue, a lot of Republicans would like to peel off from the president, but they feel that Harry Reid is making it impossible. He's taking this as an issue, forcing them to vote with the president for political reasons. So that's stalled it on partisan grounds.

And then the second issue, which I think has been looming up, especially in private conversations, is what comes next? And how are we supposed to think about that? And that, I think, you see anguish everywhere about that. If we leave, will hundreds of thousands of people die? Maybe we have to go through that process because there's no alternative. But the…

JIM LEHRER:

Have a civil war and get it over with?

DAVID BROOKS:

Right, I mean, there are two ways to think about it. First, the moral, which is, what is our moral obligation to the Iraqi people? And suppose we stay and lose 125 of our people every month, but their sacrifice leads to the saving of 10,000 Iraqi lives. What's the calculus, our people versus their people?

And then there's the security issue. Maybe there's nothing good we could do anyway, so they're going to have their civil war, so let's let them have it. Or maybe there is a way gradually to prevent that, the worst, and that's the moral dilemma that everybody sees.

JIM LEHRER:

You see the same moral dilemma?

MARK SHIELDS:

I do, but let me agree with David and disagree with him. I agree with him on the second part, that it is — we certainly went into the war without forethought, without consideration, without intelligence, and recklessly. So leaving there the same way would be, I think, immoral.