Legislating Leadership on Iraq
NY Times Editorial
29 Mar 2007
This week it was the Senate’s turn. Like the House last week and the voters last November, the Senate made clear Tuesday that Americans expect to see the disaster in Iraq brought to an early and responsible end.
President Bush’s reaction was instantaneous, familiar in its contempt for views that do not follow his in lockstep, and depressing in its lack of contact with reality. Mr. Bush threatened to veto the spending bill needed for this year’s military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than accept language calling for most American combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq sometime next year. Nor was there any hint of his own prescription for ending this war.
Mr. Bush, his advisers and his loyalists on Capitol Hill threw up a cloud of propaganda aimed at making Americans think there is a debate going on between those who want to win the war and those who want to lose. That’s nonsense, and the White House knows it. Mr. Bush’s inadequate response was a cynical attempt to portray the Democrats and moderate Republicans who voted with the majority as indifferent to the political future of Iraq and to the morale of American soldiers stationed there.
In truth, it is Mr. Bush who has been defaulting on his own responsibilities in both areas, and that is why Congress needed to add the language he now objects to so vehemently.
Instead, he has handed a blank check to a government of divisive Iraqi politicians adept at paying lip service to national reconciliation while working hard to undermine it in practice. And he continues to ratchet up an already unsustainable troop escalation that will require sending exhausted units back into combat and compromise the Army’s ability to maintain high-quality forces ready to respond to crises around the world.
Most Senate Republicans still stuck with Mr. Bush and his policies Tuesday. But their arguments are hollow. Senator John McCain of Arizona gibed that the bill should have been labeled the “Date Certain for Surrender Act.” Yet Mr. McCain himself co-sponsored a similar resolution in 1994 calling for withdrawal of American troops from Haiti “as soon as possible.” Other Republicans leading the attack on Democrats, like Senator John Warner of Virginia, also voted in favor of withdrawal from Haiti.
Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do.
The House version imposes benchmarks for political progress on the Iraqi government and requires the Bush administration to enforce them as a condition for continued financing of most American combat operations. If those conditions are met, it gives the Pentagon 18 months to complete the transition from combat operations to training and antiterrorist missions. The Senate version contains a nonbinding 12-month withdrawal timetable.
Both dates are far enough off to allow for a responsible exit. Even more important is the effort to press Mr. Bush to use remaining American leverage to nudge the Iraqi government away from its worst instincts. Passing new laws on pooling oil revenues, easing restrictions on former Baath Party members and reducing the frightening power that Shiite militias now wield in local and national police forces is fine. But Congress must also make sure the White House insists that legal changes are translated into a qualitatively different reality on the ground. That is the only course that can possibly rescue Iraq from civil war.
That pressure will be forthcoming only if Congress insists on it. Otherwise, Mr. Bush will continue to settle for half-hearted assurances from Baghdad and try to quash any thinking about a responsible exit strategy until he leaves office in 22 months.
29 Mar 2007
This week it was the Senate’s turn. Like the House last week and the voters last November, the Senate made clear Tuesday that Americans expect to see the disaster in Iraq brought to an early and responsible end.
President Bush’s reaction was instantaneous, familiar in its contempt for views that do not follow his in lockstep, and depressing in its lack of contact with reality. Mr. Bush threatened to veto the spending bill needed for this year’s military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than accept language calling for most American combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq sometime next year. Nor was there any hint of his own prescription for ending this war.
Mr. Bush, his advisers and his loyalists on Capitol Hill threw up a cloud of propaganda aimed at making Americans think there is a debate going on between those who want to win the war and those who want to lose. That’s nonsense, and the White House knows it. Mr. Bush’s inadequate response was a cynical attempt to portray the Democrats and moderate Republicans who voted with the majority as indifferent to the political future of Iraq and to the morale of American soldiers stationed there.
In truth, it is Mr. Bush who has been defaulting on his own responsibilities in both areas, and that is why Congress needed to add the language he now objects to so vehemently.
Instead, he has handed a blank check to a government of divisive Iraqi politicians adept at paying lip service to national reconciliation while working hard to undermine it in practice. And he continues to ratchet up an already unsustainable troop escalation that will require sending exhausted units back into combat and compromise the Army’s ability to maintain high-quality forces ready to respond to crises around the world.
Most Senate Republicans still stuck with Mr. Bush and his policies Tuesday. But their arguments are hollow. Senator John McCain of Arizona gibed that the bill should have been labeled the “Date Certain for Surrender Act.” Yet Mr. McCain himself co-sponsored a similar resolution in 1994 calling for withdrawal of American troops from Haiti “as soon as possible.” Other Republicans leading the attack on Democrats, like Senator John Warner of Virginia, also voted in favor of withdrawal from Haiti.
Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do.
The House version imposes benchmarks for political progress on the Iraqi government and requires the Bush administration to enforce them as a condition for continued financing of most American combat operations. If those conditions are met, it gives the Pentagon 18 months to complete the transition from combat operations to training and antiterrorist missions. The Senate version contains a nonbinding 12-month withdrawal timetable.
Both dates are far enough off to allow for a responsible exit. Even more important is the effort to press Mr. Bush to use remaining American leverage to nudge the Iraqi government away from its worst instincts. Passing new laws on pooling oil revenues, easing restrictions on former Baath Party members and reducing the frightening power that Shiite militias now wield in local and national police forces is fine. But Congress must also make sure the White House insists that legal changes are translated into a qualitatively different reality on the ground. That is the only course that can possibly rescue Iraq from civil war.
That pressure will be forthcoming only if Congress insists on it. Otherwise, Mr. Bush will continue to settle for half-hearted assurances from Baghdad and try to quash any thinking about a responsible exit strategy until he leaves office in 22 months.
posted by huZmid at 9:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home