Congress Debates False Options in Iraq

Three years too late, the US Congress started a debate yesterday on the war in Iraq. Worse than being too late, the elected elite framed the question for electoral advantage rather than in terms of the national interest. Meanwhile, the US death toll in Iraq topped 2,500. At this rate, the only honorable vote in November will be against the incumbent regardless of party.

Because they control both chambers, the Republican's disingenuousness is the more troubling. First, it links the war on terror with the war in Iraq. The only linkage that exists is simple: the Iraqi mess prevents a successful war on terror. The anti-occupation forces in Iraq use terrorist tactics, but they are not quite the same as Al Qaeda making war on the US because it is the US. Anyone who understands the least bit about the post-colonial world understands that 99% of the insurgents wouldn’t be fighting Americans if the US weren’t there. The civil war there would continue, but the US would be a neutral party.

Second, the resolution opposes the establishment of an “arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment” of American troops. This is deceitful. No one is in favor of any arbitrary timetable. In policy circles “arbitrary” is an insult. One can argue that a thoughtful policy can result in a timetable, but that thoughtful policy itself prevents arbitrariness. The resolution is essentially condemning an entire approach by suggesting that any timetable is arbitrary. That is sloppy thinking at best.

The Democrats’ missed opportunity comes from Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Mrs. Clinton, never the favorite here, is emerging as the leader of the Vichy Democrats, collaborating with the Busheviks so they don’t get called “unpatriotic.” Granted, the approach of John Kerry, which is to get most of the troops out by year-end and totally out by 2007, fails to explain why the timing is opportune. However, if the Democrats are to be the party of opposition, it might be wise to oppose the administration.

What ought to happen is not difficult to see. There is a government in Iraq that needs a little time to flex its muscles. Although the US should never have found its way into this position, the world will know within a few months whether the Iraqis back the Baghdad government. If they do and no longer need America’s help, withdrawal is opportune. If they do but the fight requires more American support, staying could be the better course. If they do not back the elected regime, staying is stupid. Withdrawal by year-end is not realistic, but a decision to withdraw or not could well be made by then – without any taint of arbitrariness.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home