Iraq: The hard part is moving forward

Listen to the frustration and anger in the voices of those retired military leaders who condemn the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and demand Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resign. Listen to what else they are saying.

"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste told a hearing called by Democratic senators. "We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton said. "We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes added. As reported by The Washington Post, none of the three pulled a punch in their criticism of the war planning or the abject failure of the White House and Pentagon to develop a post-war plan for Iraq. These are powerfully credible words for opponents of the war to embrace. But they come with a catch that must be acknowledged.

They were key military officers — Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division and Eaton oversaw the training of Iraqi troops and security forces — whose advice was ignored in Washington and whose pleas for additional U.S. troops were never respected.

They would have fought the war differently and prosecuted the post-war phase in different ways. But please note: The military experts have strong opinions about the hazards of an abrupt departure or feeble commitment to regional stability.

Will Republicans and Democrats in Congress be found guilty of the same selective parsing of information about Iraq? Will the advice of the military be ignored by another set of politicians with their own agendas?

Iraq is a mess and the retired generals and Hammes help explain how it got to be so. They are not, however, letting anyone off the hook for the challenges behind what must be done to set the country and region right.

As the war drags on, more truth is being revealed. A classified National Intelligence Estimate is providing another window on the disastrous consequences of the invasion. Leaked portions of the estimate come from a document that represents "the first formal evaluation of global trends in terrorism since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq." This is not a slap-dash assessment.

The administration's feeble defense is to argue the news is not all bad. Prove it. Release the full document and let the country decide for itself how much safer the war has made the United States.