posted by Damozel |
As the British Iraq Commission has now informed Gordon Brown, there are no easy ways out of Iraq because any rational solution must take into account what the Iraqis need. (See New Roadmaps Out of Iraq). Sadly---and, in the long term, probably dangerously---Congress as a whole (especially, I'm sorry to say, my fellow Democrats) seems largely unconcerned with the consequences to Iraq of the withdrawal of American troops---or with the impact on Iraq's struggling government of the timetable that Congress has imposed on it.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Maliki's aide Yassin Majid had to explain what the Prime Minister actually meant when he said: "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want." According to his aide, what this actually meant was "that efforts to bolster Iraq's security forces would continue "side-by-side with the withdrawal." (The Washington Post)
As we know, Prime Minister al-Maliki had said in a press conference that Iraq was prepared for coalition troop withdrawals at "any time," appearing thereby rather to undercut the Administration's argument that "155,000 U.S. troops must remain in Iraq because the Iraqis are not capable of providing for their own security." (The Washington Post) But Prime Minister Maliki was offended and probably flustered---should we be surprised?-- by Congress's "disappointment" with his government's failure to meet the benchmarks they decided to use to measure his government's success. Or, as The Washington Post puts it:
Al-Maliki's remarks appeared to reflect Iraqi frustration with American complaints that the country's religious and ethnic communities have failed to move fast enough to enact power-sharing deals _ the key to long-term stability after more than four years of war.
Legislation has stalled in part because of separate boycotts by Sunni legislators and Shiite lawmakers loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Negotiations have been under way to convince both blocs to return during Monday's scheduled parliamentary session.
Adnan al-Dulaimi, a Sunni leader, met Sunday with al-Maliki to discuss the Sunni boycott, which began last month following the ouster of the Sunni speaker of parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani.
The Shiite-dominated parliament voted June 11 to remove al-Mashhadani because of erratic behavior and comments that frequently embarrassed al-Maliki's government. (The Washington Post)
Have you ever heard of the people named in this WaPo excerpt? No? Neither have I. And I bet most members of Congress have only the dimmest notion, if they know at all. And without knowing much more than we know about political tensions within the Maliki government, it seems a bit damned disingenuous to criticize that government for failing to achieve benchmarks (such as, but not limited to, the passage of key legisation).
For example, Senator Warner said---a bit tactlessly, I'd say---"""I am disappointed that, after great sacrifice by U.S. and Iraqi troops since the announcement of the surge in January, the Iraqi government has not met critical political benchmarks in that period...That government is simply not providing leadership worthy of the considerable sacrifice of our forces, and this has to change immediately.". (Washington Post)
But what, specifically, would such "leadership" look like, according to Senator Warner? Perhaps this is what upset him?
....Bush aides acknowledged that they failed to pressure the Iraqi parliament to remain in session in August to advance long-stalled legislation deemed crucial to political reconciliation. "My understanding is at this juncture they're going to take August off, but, you know, they may change their minds," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. He added sympathetically: "You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August."(The Washington Post)
130 degrees? Do we want them trying to make political decisions under those conditions?
Setting aside the Iraqi Parliament's insistence on taking time off during the hottest month, Prime Minister Maliki can't make members of Parliament do his bidding; he's not, after all, Saddam Hussein. Wasn't that the point of invading Iraq---to set up a government that wouldn't be under the control of a single "strong man"?
The Bush Administration points this out in its "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report." What follows makes visceral sense to me which makes me think it is probably true.
Effective steps toward national reconciliation will require national leadership from all communities and expression of a common national political will, or “vision,” that has so far been lacking. The consensus nature of Iraqi politics, and the checks and balances built into the Iraqi governance structure, inhibit Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s ability to govern effectively -- and would pose obstacles to any prime minister. These inhibitors slow progress on high-priority legislative benchmarks, although they are designed to create a decision-making process through which all major communities have a voice and a stake. The increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long-term commitment to Iraq has also served in recent months to reinforce hedging behaviors and made the hardest political bargains even more difficult to close. IBAR 5.
The report also states:
Moving key legislation depends on deal-making among major players in a society deeply divided along sectarian, ethnic, and other lines. Meaningful and lasting progress on national reconciliation may also require a sustained period of reduced violence in order to build trust. For this reason, most of the major political benchmarks identified in the legislation -- i.e., final passage of monumental pieces of legislation through Iraq’s Council of Representatives by consensus -- are lagging indicators of whether or not the strategy is succeeding or is going to be successful. IBAR at 2.
Even the Bush Administration may be right sometimes.
And though I fervently agree that we oughtn't to have invaded Iraq in the first place, it seems to me that since we did (and it wasn't just the Bush Administration's decision; it was authorized by Congress), we need to make sure that we do not in fact leave the Iraqi government, such as it is, high and dry. So we need an approach that will get the troops out of Iraq, but only after the Iraqi forces really are in a position to step in, which means we probably can't set a specific withdrawal date---or at least not yet. (See, e.g, An Antiwar Liberal Balks at Withdrawal (The Daily Dish) and see Andrew Sullivan, Liberals Against Withdrawal Ctd. (The Daily Dish))
Just to be clear, I want desperately to see America get out of a war I didn't think we should have got ourselves into in the first place, but since we did, I think we must do what we can to minimize the consequences to Iraq. Yesterday, Baroness Jay of Paddington, one of the co-chairs of Britain's cross-party Iraq Commission, had this to say about the commission's findings and recommendations to the Brown Government:
[T]here are no political or military "silver bullets" to solve the situation there. The Iraq Commission report states there are now no easy choices, only painful ones for the countries who led the invasion in 2003.... There is a remarkable consensus that ultimately only Iraqis can improve Iraq, but in the short term they need our help... We should refocus our military activity, progressively ceasing offensive military operations and bringing to completion the capacity building of the Iraqi security forces. This does not mean we should "cut and run" or set a fixed timetable for withdrawal. Doing so would simply give heart to our enemies. As Bayan Rahman, the Kurdistan Regional Government High Representative to the UK, told us: "Untimely withdrawal from Iraq would send completely the wrong message to al-Qa'ida and to other terrorist organisations. It would be seen as weakness and defeat.".
Peace building is not an event, but a process. A lasting peace may take years to achieve with more bloodshed in the interim.... To summarise: for security, we must reinvigorate the process of reconciliation. For stability, we must protect Iraq's territorial integrity. For prosperity, we must devise an economic plan for peace. For humanity, we must protect the most vulnerable people. In diplomacy, we must lead and build international and regional alliances.
There is a political impetus for Gordon Brown simply to draw a line under the mistakes of the past. But we have a responsibility to go further. (Independent)
I do not support the Bush/Blair plan of keeping troops in Iraq until the country is sufficiently stable and secure for us to feel we don't have to worry about civil war or sectarian strife, because that could well be never. But I am furious with my own party's representatives for caving in to pressure from the antiwar wing of the party without exploring all consequences of the "worst case scenario" if they set a predetermined or inflexible troop withdrawal deadline.
While the Iraq war was and is the product of a bad policy decision by the Bush Administration, surely it's the responsibility of the Congress to ensure that the solutions to the problem are well thought through and designed to minimize the harm. I would like to see the Democrats lead the way on this, but I have little hope that they will.
I am hoping that both sides of the aisle will stop listening to the emotional arguments of voters (who are allowed to be emotional) for a sooner-rather-than-later-approach and instead take the responsibility for educating the public about a reasoned approach. We're allowed to get emotional about the loss of American life; our representatives---whom we entrust with the duty to study all sides of the question---are supposed to be able to set aside their personal feelings when attempting to work out a reasoned response. But I am seeing precious little of that in Congress or elsewhere (don't get me started on the candidates).
Consider Senator Harry Reid's so-called "reasons" for reversing his previous opposition to troop withdrawal deadlines.
Reid had previously opposed setting a firm end date for the war, a stance he has backed away from in recent months as others in his party moved to increase pressure on Bush. He officially converted after visiting wounded soldiers last week at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
"Talk about a way to be depressed," Reid said yesterday in a talk-radio interview with liberal host Ed Schultz. "The American people, I repeat, have to understand what is happening. It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain." (The Washington Post)
Why don't more Democratic voters tremble with outrage when they read this tripe? It's one thing for the hearts of the voters or indeed of Harry Reid to break over stories of the sacrifice of young lives. But emotional responses shouldn't drive foreign policy. Not only American interests are at stake.
So what I'd like to say to Reid is this: screw your feelings. The time to have thought about what war in Iraq would mean to American troops was before we invaded. I'd say the same to all Democrats in Congress, especially---but not limited to---the ones who used to think that bringing down Saddam Hussein might be a good idea and/or actually voted in favor of the invasion.
Whether or not the Bush Administration was wrong to lead us into war---to which I say: yes, yes, yes---we can't just reverse out, however much it hurts us to see the consequences. We need a rational strategy.
Which is why I lean more toward the approach proposed by Warner and Lugar----which at least appears to weigh the interest of the Iraqis as well as the US---than that of my fellow Democrats like Reid. (The Washington Post)
But what I'm really hoping is that Congress will pay close attention to the findings and recommendations of Britain's Iraq Commission and that it will revisit the report of the US Iraq study group.
Before we do anything else without thinking through the consequences, let's hope our Congress will take a long hard look at the recommendations of nonpartisan groups that have taken the time to examine all sides of the question.
PS. This note constitutes my response to Andrew Sullivan's notes here and here.
PREVIOUS BNPolitics
- New Roadmaps Out of Iraq.
- Britain pulls away; Bush presses forward---Democrats push back. Should Democrats Give War a Chance? (UPDATED)
LINKED, CITED, OR QUOTED
- Margaret Jay, With the UN's Help, Britain Can Do a Lot for Iraq (Independent)
- The Iraq Commission (UK Channel 4 & Foreign Policy Center)
- Andrew Sullivan, Liberals Against Withdrawal Ctd. (The Daily Dish)
- Andrew Sullivan, An Antiwar Liberal Balks at Withdrawal (The Daily Dish)
- Andrew Sullivan, The Pro-War Democrats (The Daily Dish)
- Robert H. Reid, Aide: Iraqi PM's Comments Misconstrued (The Washington Post)
- Shailagh Murray and Robin Wright, Two GOP Senators Defy Bush On Iraq (The Washington Post)
- Shailagh Murray, Reid Backs Iraq War-Funds Cutoff (The Washington Post)
- Ted Barrett, Congress forms panel to study Iraq war (CNN)
- Report of the Iraq Study Group (Washington Post)
- Initial Benchmark Assessment Report (IBAR/WSJ)
Comments