Senate Calls for “Significant Transition to Full Iraqi Sovereignty” in 2006

The legislature in the US is starting to act like a co-equal branch of government. Yesterday, the US Senate entertained two plans to get some sort of resolution to the Iraq mess. The Democratic version, which called for a timetable for gradual US troop withdrawals, went down in flames 50-48, but the Republican approach passed 79-19. Both were non-binding, but the GOP approved approach is in the defense bill under consideration in the Senate. It’s a long way from an exit strategy, but it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Naturally, there was a great deal of posturing. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) sniped, “They [the Democrats in the Senate] want an exit strategy, a cut-and-run exit strategy. What we are for is a successful strategy.” That's about as unrealistic a desire as a 6-year-old's wish for a pony at Christmas. Meanwhile, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV), said, “We want to change the course. We can’t stay the course.” Starting on the course was the real problem, and the Democrats largely went along with the attack on Iraq -- Mr. Reid's more than two years too late.

The entire debate about an exit strategy hinges on a simple assumption, namely that the US troops are going to exit. Back when Mr. Bush dreamed of US troops being met by the Iraqi people with sweets and flowers, it probably never occurred to anyone in his administration that leaving was part of the deal. The “14 enduring bases” under construction in Iraq (or completely finished by now) attest to this. However, there seems to be no way an Iraqi government would accept a permanent US presence, and most Americans don’t want one. Add in the fact that the British have said they could be gone by the end of 2006, and the question becomes “what to do?”

The United States Marine Corps takes high school graduates and turns them into jarheads (the term is used with affection and respect) in 70 training days. Officers in the US Army undergo 9 weeks of basic training and 14 weeks of Officer Candidate School. Lieutenants and troops take less than a half year to produce -- and Iraqi forces don't have to be as good as their US counterparts, merely better than the insurgents. In addition, the Iraqi government has asked the Saddamite officer corps to return to the colors. In other words, there is no reason not to have a fully functioning army in Iraq after the past 2 plus years of training. With an elected government due out of the December 15 elections, everything is in place for US troop withdrawals.

If Iraqis will not fight for an Iraqi elected government chosen under an Iraqi drafted and approved constitution, then why should Americans? If they need another year or two, one could entertain the idea. After that, GI Joe needs to come home. Senator Frist may call that cutting and running, but when a battle is lost, only a fool keeps fighting it. Custer should have cut and run.

That said, it is good to see the Republicans in the Senate start to question the administration. Questions are part of the American system of checks and balances. For too long, they have rubber-stamped every idea that has come down from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. And in so doing, they let the president make too many mistakes. If Mr. Bush won’t save his second term, perhaps the Senate and House can keep his failure from being catastrophic.

© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home