The Democrats are in quite a bind right now. Bush's policy in Iraq has clearly failed thus far. Iraq is increasingly less stable politically, violence is increasing, and civil war seems increasingly inevitable.
But Iraq is not yet lost. A full-blown civil war has, amazingly, yet to explode. Most Iraqis still seem to be holding out for a better future. Islamic extremists have not taken over the government. While Iran and Syria seem to be intervening by supporting allies inside Iraq, the long-feared regional conflict is still but a possibility.
The dangers of losing Iraq have been extensively discussed and are generally acknowledged by Bush's supporters and critics alike.
So what to do? Bush's escalation seems ill-conceived. It involves too few troops, though sending more troops seems to be not an option. Many military analysts say that the US military is "broken" and we are limited in terms of available combat troops. So we are left with Bush sending 21,000 plus combat troops, plus additional support troops, to attempt to secure Baghdad and, perhaps, one additional province. It is possible that the troops will succeed in the short term, but the surge seems unlikely to change the political landscape in Iraq or to enable the Iraqi Army to finally take over security for its own country.
Moreover, even though Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz and Feith are gone, it is difficult to imagine the Bush Administration suddenly finding the ability to be competent in Iraq - or anyplace, for that matter. Why allow this commander-in-chief to send even one more soldier into harm's way after the way he has mismanaged this war, the war in Afghanistan, Katrina, etc.?
But if not the surge, then what?
That's the Democrats' - and the sane Republicans' - dilemma. We can't afford to lose Iraq. But we can't trust Bush to save it. The Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage Iran and Syria in regional talks is worth trying - what's there to lose? - but it would be naive to think that Syria or, certainly, Iran will suddenly shift it's priorities in Iraq just because Condy Rice asks them to. It is worth trying to engage Iran in serious talks about a range of issues - its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its involvement in Iraq, etc. - but let's not bet everything on Iran suddenly becoming a partner for peace and stability in the region, much as it might benefit from such an outcome.
In terms of trying to broker an internal political arrangement in Iraq, that remains our best bet, but I can't help but think that if Zal Khalilzad couldn't pull it off during his tenure as our ambassador to Iraq, it's unlikely that even an experienced diplomat like his successor, Ryan Crocker, will find success any time soon.
So here we are, back to the dilemma. Handed the majority in Congress by an electorate seen to be fed up with the failures of existing Iraq policy, the Democrats need to find some way to apply pressure on the Administration to change course without assuming responsibility for what increasingly seems like an inevitable disaster. Compelling a hasty withdrawal or cutting off funding for the existing troop deployment or the surge could lay that failure squarely on the laps of the Democrats in Congress. But passing a non-binding resolution against the surge while approving the funding to make the surge possible could make them seem complicit should the surge fail in its objectives and result in even more American body bags coming home.
Perhaps the least bad option would be to deny funding for the surge - if you think it's the wrong thing to do, how could you vote to fund it? - and then throw it back on the President's desk. Make it clear that this is his mess and that the American people voted clearly in November for a new approach - not more of the same failed approach. Tell the President he's just going to have to do better with the troop levels he already has.
Otherwise, the Democrats will be left with, at best, a symbolic non-binding resolution against the surge and waiting to see if it work in the short term. If by the fall the situation in Baghdad is not considerably better and a political settlement is not in place, then the Democrats can say they gave Bush one last try, but the voters may see that as having been a violation of the trust they invested in the Democrats last November.
No comments:
Post a Comment