Understanding the Iraqi Timetable
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published April 25, 2007, 1:13 pm in Military / Foreign policy, Voting & Partisanship.
I love the idea of Vice President Dick Cheney as Bush's "attack dog," which is what Senator Harry Reid called him today. It's actually pretty common for Vice Presidents to take on this role, though, so don't expect that the next President and VP will have a different relationship. Some VPs are more on the sidelines, but some are there to take the heat. That's Cheney.
The whole issue is over whether or not Congress will pass the controversial spending bill that includes a "timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq. Personally, I think a timetable is a bad idea, and I agree with Bush on this one. Yes, I tend to agree with Bush every now and then, and actually, I'm proud of myself for doing it. Most of the time, I just want to call him names, so when I actually agree with him, I think to myself, "Yes, I am a well-balanced, independent thinker." And then reality sets in: maybe I'm just a liberal warhawk. Maybe I'm Joseph Lieberman. Anyway, Bush has consistently said that he will veto any bill that Congress passes that includes such a timetable, so in effect Congress is just being stupid and hurting the troops by passing it. That's some weird reasoning there, so don't think I agree with Bush on everything he says. Certainly, I don't.
Let's go through the reasoning on both sides, and maybe we can come up with a coherent reason why I'm against the timetable.
As a first reason for the timetable, there is the constant insistence on a "mandate" from the American people, delivered last November. Yes, the Democrats won the election, and it can definitely be seen as a mandate. What the people mandated was a change, however. They did not mandate policy. Including a timetable at this point is not exactly what the public called for. Using that as an excuse doesn't really make sense. Sure, the timetable is a change, but it may not be the most effective change.
So let's go back to look at why the Democrats want to include a timetable.
Well, wait, that's really it. If 6 out of 10 people claim that a timetable is necessary, which is the poll that keeps getting bandied around, then the Democrats are delivering what the people want. They're doing the will of the people, which is to get our troops out of there. Isn't that the point of a democratically elected government in the first place?
So that's really it. The Democrats want to put out a timetable because the American public wants to war to end.
There's another reason that is attached to this one, which is that the Iraqis need to step up the plate and take responsibility for their own country. And the only way they will ever do that is if we leave them on their own. It's kind of like the trial by fire idea. Or this metaphor: you can do something for someone, but it will work a lot better if you teach the person how. As it is, Iraq is dependent on us and is willing to be dependent on us, perhaps not even wanting to be left alone. But if we tell them that we're pulling out by this time, then they darn well better have their act together by then. Even Bush and other Republicans understand this reason, and they're trying to get the Maliki government to change its ways. They have told Maliki that he needs to make progress or Bush won't be able to hold off Congress. The American people won't fight their battles forever, after all.
These reasons make sense, but the New York Times today hinted at a truer reason: "While acknowledging that Mr. Bush would send the bill back, they said they were determined to force him to formally reject legislation that provides more money for the military than sought by the White House, but puts conditions on its use. 'For the first time, the president will have to face up, will have to be accountable for this war in Iraq,' Ms. Pelosi, said. 'And he doesn’t want to face that reality.'
What that means is that the Democrats know that they're stalling. Bush has said again and again that he will veto the measure, and all this means is that the Democrats will have to come back and revise the bill so that it does not include a timetable. Yes, they will do that. They will have no choice. Either they do it, or they face the charge of "not supporting the troops." Some Democrats are saying the same thing about Bush, though. The argument goes like this: The Democrats are not supporting the troops because they're not passing a bill that will become law. Therefore, they are wasting time and denying funding to the troops. But the President is not supporting the troops because he won't sign the bill passed by Congress. So he is the one wasting time and denying funding to the troops. Well, both of these are right, but it really doesn't matter who is "supporting the troops" or not. It's a stupid phrase and it means nothing. What matters is what the goal is.
If the Democrats' goal is really just to make Bush "face up" to Iraq, as Pelosi says, then it's a pointless political move. As Cheney said, "What’s most troubling about Senator Reid’s comments yesterday is his defeatism...And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat. Maybe it is a political calculation." I wonder about the word "defeat" there. It seems to refer to defeat in Iraq. That's what the Republicans are countering with, after all. They're saying that providing a timetable would give the enemies of Iraq a chance to build their strategies and then begin their attacks when America pulls out. It gives them a timetable, too. But the word "defeat" as used by Cheney also seems to imply something about the bill. Perhaps Reid's "defeatism" is that he knows the bill will be defeated when Bush vetoes it. Perhaps that is the political strategy. Just make Bush veto it so that Bush can be seen as the bad guy, not passing a law that really supports the troops. I think Cheney means that the political strategy is to lose in Iraq and make the Republicans looks bad in order to win in 2008. Maybe both meanings are true.
To reiterate the Republican position on the timetable: it's unwise to tell your enemies when you will be leaving because you give them an advantage, a date they can use. That makes sense, too. All the enemies (notice I use this vague term, because, well, we really have no idea what's going on...) have to do is wait us out until we leave and then attack. There's a flaw there, too, though. It implies that the Iraqis will not be able to win when we leave. But if we do our job and train the Iraqis, then can't they fight their own war when the time comes? Maybe, maybe not, I guess.
Anyway, I hope this analysis of the situation shows why I think the Democrats are making a mistake. They do seem to be trying to get the President to do something (veto the bill), knowing full well that they will have to revise it in order to get it passed. Perhaps that's wrong on the President's part, too, but it seems wrong for the Democrats to do it. Besides, will a timetable really help? Can't the commanders have their own timetable in mind and revise it as necessary?
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 4 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment