Today's Washington Post editorial stated that many Congressional Republicans want to slowly withdraw troops in Iraq, leaving some behind to train the Iraqis and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to force a vote on Iraq was an irresponsible political maneuver that diminished bipartisan cooperation.
Lacking military expertise, I can't comfortably draw conclusions, but numerous questions are flooding my mind. First, if we withdraw a significant fraction of the troops, will that make the ones left in Iraq more vulnerable?
Second, we've been in Iraq for 4-plus years: how much longer should it take to train the Iraqis? The Iraqi Parliament seems to want us to leave their country sooner not later (BNPolitics). Given that, why does the Bush Administration envision staying in Iraq for the long haul -- like Korea? (BNPolitics).
Four senior Republican senators (Domenici, Lugar, Voinovich and Warner) did publicly criticize the President's Iraq strategies, possibly signifying bipartisan agreement on the war's ending. Conservative columnist David Brooks said:
"Months ago... Senior Republican senators were anxious to move away from the White House, to move towards some sort of withdrawal. Now they're not talking that way. They're talking, 'We've got to stick with the president.' And why? Two words: Harry Reid." (Online News Hour)
If they'd wanted to break with Bush for months, why did the four outspoken senators withhold their criticism until late June or early July? (BNPolitics) Did they break with Bush because they want to end the war or because they were terrified by the public's downward spiraling support for both the Iraq war and the President?
Obsidian Wings responded to Brooks' comments, suggesting that the senior Republicans are also focusing on politics:
"If David Brooks is right, then "senior Republican senators" are planning to cast their votes on the question what to do in Iraq -- whether to try to salvage some kind of decent outcome at the cost of people's lives, or to leave now -- not on the basis of what is actually best for Iraq, or for our country, or for our troops, or for our long-term national interests, but because of "Two words: Harry Reid." According to Brooks, they feel that Harry Reid "is making it impossible" for them to break with the President.
"News flash for the Senate Republicans:... It is not impossible for Senators to vote against the President. It isn't even all that difficult. Senators are an extraordinarily privileged bunch. Even if they lose the next election, they can look forward to lucrative careers as lobbyists, speakers, members of boards, and so forth."
Another thing troubled me about the WaPo editorial: it implied that Congressional Republicans and the President agree on Iraq strategies. If that's so, why did Domenici, Voinovich, Lugar, and Warner stand under glaring spotlights and criticize Bush's strategies over the last few weeks? Did they just start agreeing yesterday? If so, was it the four senators or President Bush who had the change of heart?
In a press conference last week, President Bush implied that he favors some sort of slow draw down of troops at some unspecified time after Administration officials give their report in September 2007. No insult intended, but how can we rationally believe anything Administration officials say about the war, given their track record of relying on flimsy "facts" before the Iraq invasion and their flip-flopping over strategies after we got to Iraq?
In June 2006, Administration officials said they wanted to cut in half the number of troops in Iraq by December 2007 (BNPolitics). In June 2007 (just five weeks ago), they said they wanted to cut troops by half in late 2008 or early 2009 (Wapo).
The Administration's statements about Iraq often conflict with themselves or reality. Four-plus years ago, the President promised a short war (USA Today). Two months later, he declared "Mission Accomplished." Here we are, four-plus years later, and the Administration still doesn't have a clear exit strategy.
Administration officials aren't even consistent about whether troop withdrawal should be up for public debate (Washington Post and BNPolitics). Oddly, that debate was resolved following another round of self-contradiction: in May 2007, when Congress called for troop withdrawal, President Bush said "It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing”; six weeks later, Administration officials were publicly telling the enemy just that (BNPolitics).
"All these Republicans want is a chance to save face. Fuck them. They voted for this war, and have blindly supported the war to this point, questioning the patriotism of anyone who disagreed.
"They can wear this war around their necks for the rest of their lives. Let's see how they feel after spending August at home with their voters.".
"My focus here is why Wapo has gone from blindly supporting the liberal agenda to providing a more balanced, not totally balanced, but MORE balanced number of articles.... "The reason I think the Wapo writers as well as the editorial board has made this slight shift is based on a few points.
"First we are seeing more and more progress being reported in MSM about the successes in Iraq. Second, Wapo could be seeing the tide turning a bit in the public where Congress now only holds a 14% approval rating....
"There is another point though here, perhaps Wapo would simply be able to say, later, that half of their writers and editorials were right, no matter how things turn out."
"laughably lay[ing] the blame on Reid for endangering our national security by answering to the will of the people. He should look in a mirror. What endangers this country the most is this sort of GOP stenography that attempts to justify the Republicans' obstructionism."
Comments