Dan Rather

The midterm election results have already transformed the Iraq debate. Now that the Bush administration no longer feels compelled politically to insist that a tweaking of tactics is all that's needed in Iraq, and now that the Democrats' policy prescriptions carry the weight of elected majorities in the House and Senate, a full range of options once relegated to the sidelines are suddenly in play.

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued what could be seen as the Democrats' opening salvo when he called last week for "President Bush to tell (the Iraqi government) that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months.''

On the administration side, there is cramming after the midterms: President Bush last week initiated a broad internal review of Iraq policy, which will likely produce its results about the same time that former Secretary of State James Baker's Iraq Study Group announces its own findings. Some political analysts see in this parallel review process an effort by the White House to double-cover itself politically - to provide flexibility in adopting or not adopting the options that the politically covering Iraq Study Group recommends.

A lot of covering

That would be a lot of politics, and a lot of covering. It was therefore refreshing to read that another review (which may get folded into the White House's report), commissioned by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is "not connected with any political effort that might also be going on," according to a Joint Staff spokesperson quoted in The Washington Post. Before submitting that report, though, Gen. Pace may want to consider the fate of Gen. Eric Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff.

We had plenty of politics leading up to election day. And, like it or not, politics will no doubt be involved in formulating the next stage of Iraq strategy. But on this huge question - huge because it involves not only American and Iraqi lives and the fate of a country, but also because it impinges on one of the most sensitive and strategically vital parts of the world - it seems absolutely crucial that we do not let politics once again infect the data, the metrics and the perceptions from which policy will be formulated.

Most basic question

With this in mind, the most basic question about Iraq may be that of just what our troops are doing over there right now: Are they fighting on the key front in the war on terrorism - so "We don't have to fight the terrorists here," as the administration would have it - or are they trying to keep a simmering civil war from boiling over?

To ask the question is not to suggest that your reporter has a definitive answer. But it does seem worth pointing out that you can have a civil war without blue - and gray - uniformed armies doing battle in trench-lined fields. Every civil war - every war - looks different, and U.S. force levels in Iraq have so far been sufficient to prevent opposing militias from massing in open fighting.

Taking that into consideration, we might ask ourselves what it looks like when uniformed militias pull up to a Baghdad government ministry in broad daylight in 20 armoured SUVs and proceed to take dozens of hostages. We might also ask ourselves how it looks when bombs are going off in that same capital, killing additional dozens at a time. Perhaps an answer can be found in a Reuters headline from this week: "Iraq Government Split Over Hostages, Militia Threat." To quote James Baker, there are "no easy solutions" for Iraq. So let's hope we start by posing the questions correctly.

Dan Rather is an American television commentator.