Britain pulls away; Bush presses forward---Democrats push back. Should Democrats Give War a Chance? (UPDATED)

Posted by Cockney Robin | Clearly, President Bush is coming under serious pressure to wrap up the war in Iraq.  It's not just the Democrats; Republican Senators Warner and Lugar have now drafted legislation which "represents a sharp challenge to Bush." (The Washington Post)

IS BRITAIN PULLING AWAY FROM THE U.S.?  Now that we don't have Tony to kick around anymore, Gordon Brown's Labour government seems to be positioning itself to reposition itself and its relations with the U.S. In Washington last night, to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brown's International Development Secretary, Douglas Alexander,  said:  ""We must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world but ones which reach out to the world." (The Telegraph) 

British papers all consider this a "hint" to the US of an impending foreign policy shift.  A hint, eh? According to the BBC, "Downing Street has denied claims a speech by a Cabinet minister was critical of US foreign policy."  Do they protest too much?   But decide for yourself:

In the 20th Century a country's might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st Century strength should be measured by what we can build together," he said.

"And so we must form new alliances, based on common values, ones not just to protect us from the world, but ones which reach out to the world.

There is no security or prosperity at home unless we deal with the global challenges of security, globalisation, climate change, disease and poverty.

"We must recognise these challenges and champion an internationalist approach - seeking shared solutions to the problems we face.

"Multilateralist, not unilateralist means a rules-based international system. Just as we need the rule of law at home to have civilisation so we need rules abroad to ensure global civilisation." (BBC News)

In the meantime, Gordon Brown has promised the UN to work to build "a multilateral solution" in the event of another Iraq . (The Independent) The new PM wants the UN and other international bodies to be reformed "so they are stronger and more effective." (The Independent  At the same time, Brown and his allies are clearly anxious not to appear to be "distancing" the UK government from the US..even while doing so, (The Independent)  what with claiming that a speech recommending a fresh new multilateral approach (that to the average ignoramus like me appears to be the opposite to Administration's) wasn't intended to suggest a possible insufficiency in that policy...Tch.   

It's really too early to tell.  Brown hasn't so far said what changes, if any, he is going to make in his approach to Iraq. (The Independent  The Iraq Commission is meant to be publishing a report tomorrow setting out a proposed strategy for Britain in Iraq (including diplomatic relations between Britain and the U.S.).  The Independent suggests that this report may be "a possible blueprint" for Brown.  Most members of his own party, like most Democrats,  would like for him to hasten the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.   (The Independent)

BUSH PRESSES FORWARD. In the meantime, President Bush still thinks the Iraq war can be won (video)  He really seems to believe it.  In the meantime, Damozel got very sad that his unpopularity has evidently hurt his feelings and that he misses being loved.  She also worries a lot that the Democrats in Congress have stopped listening to anything the president says and are just caving in to pressure from the antiwar people.  She's apparently not wrong about the "not listening" part, as I'll be getting to.

Back to Bush.  Stammering rather, he said in a press conference,  ""I understand why the American people are tired of the war," he said. "There’s war fatigue in America. It’s affecting our psychology. I’ve said this before. I understand that it’s an ugly war.""(The Telegraph) While the report shows mixed results---eight of 18 "benchmarks" were satisfactorily met---he says he's not going to be pushed into withdrawal before the "surge" has had time to take effect. (The Washington Post)  Before leaving, he wants to "defeat al-Qaeda and other extremists and aid the rise of an Iraqi government that can protect its people...while securing our long-term national interest in Iraq and in the region."" (The Washington Post) 

The article doesn't say specifically which "long-term national interests in Iraq and in the region" he means. That's the part I'd like to hear more about:  the exact extent to which the war is being prolonged to serve interests other than the first ones he mentioned. Columnist Andrew Sullivan publlished a note today which speculates about the Bush Administration's true reasons for going to war in the first place. I would like to know all the reasons why the Bush Administration is determined to remain at war.   

At any rate, Bush sees overall "measurable progress." (The Telegraph)  He was apparently "candid" about the failures of the Iraqui government to meet benchmarks.  His own party as well as the opposition have questioned whether the Iraqui government is capable of doing so.  Apparently, the Iraqui military is less ready to operate independently since the surge.(The Washington Post)   That's not good.  You can see why some members of Congress would be a bit irked by that.

And indeed, Senator  John Warner, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee expressed dissatisfaction:  "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." (The Washington Post)   But---though a few Republicans have voted with the opposition--- most Republicans continue to stand behind Bush. (The Washington Post)

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives voted 223-201 to withdraw troops by spring 2008.(The Independent)

Under the bill, which mirrors a bipartisan amendment now under debate in the Senate, combat troops would have to start coming home within 120 days of passage, with most of them out by April 1, 2008. An unstated number of troops -- perhaps tens of thousands, according to Senate GOP supporters -- would probably remain to combat terrorism, protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and train Iraqi security forces, although Bush would be required to justify their continued deployment.(The Washington Post)

What mostly struck me is that this shows a pretty significant division on an extremely serious issue.  In other words, a large number of representatives in Congress think this is the wrong move.  President Bush has threatened a veto, and the Democrats are a long way from having enough votes to override it. (The Washington Post)  

DEMOCRATS PUSH BACK. Somehow, I'd got the impression recently that the tide had turned a lot more than this and that both parties were beginning to come round to the view that the withdrawal needs to happen sooner rather than later  You'd think this would be the sort of thing where the Democrats would want more of a consensus.  But the political analyst for The Washington Post says, "Neither side shows even passing interest in forging a bipartisan consensus, preferring instead to bend the other to its will."  (The Washington Post)  That seems strange.  Both sides, according to  this article, are  "trapped by the fear of the consequences of  what happens if they do make a change."   (The Washington Post)   You'd think this would be the sort of situation in which both sides would be working overtime to build a consensus or compromise position. But Peter Baker of The Washington Post says:

Yet Democrats appear uninterested in reaching out to Republicans, preferring to keep party differences on the war clear heading into the 2008 elections and fearing that any proposal moderate enough to attract GOP support could anger the antiwar wing of their party. "I'm not supportive of where the president is, but they haven't engaged any of us here," said an angry Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "They're just trying to score political points."(The Washington Post) 

I'm getting pretty used to hearing politicians from both parties use the phrase, "They're just trying to score political points," but if what this analyst says is true, then it really does sort of seem to be what they're up to.   From this, it definitely sounds as if the Democrats (supposedly afraid of "the antiwar wing of their party") are letting the tail wag the dog.  There's a time to for a party to throw its weight around just because it can.  This doesn't seem like that sort of time.   The Iraq war doesn't seem to be the sort of issue where it is safe for the majority to ride roughshod over the will of a substantial minority of people. Sometimes it doesn't look as if the Democrats learned anything from watching the failures of the Bush Administration.

The president said he might consider a new approach, but wants to wait till September. (The Washington Post)   In September General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are meant to present their assessment of progress in Iraq.  He is firm that now is not the right time:

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now," he said. "To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale." (The Washington Post)

But the Democrats don't wait two and a half more months.  So the outcome is likely to be " at least two more months of anger and posturing but no change in direction."  (The Washington Post) 

IMPENDING THREAT?  Do they really have time to much about right now?  Shouldn't they be putting their heads together to consider what they will do to prevent these threats from materializing or to prevent them from occurring?

One thing the president said was that the Iraq war had weakened al-Qu'aeda.   According to The Independent, he said, "Because of the actions we’ve taken, al-Qa’eda is weaker today than they would have been. They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. And that is why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and anywhere else we find them." (The Telegraph) 

Apparently a draft national intelligence estimate on which Congress was briefed on Tuesday suggests otherwise, at least as regards to the weakness of al-Qu'eda.  (Kansas City.com)   

Al-Qaida is stepping up efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, an intelligence assessment says.The draft national intelligence estimate, on which Congress will be briefed Tuesday, is expected to paint an ever-more-worrisome portrait of al-Qaida’s ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attack.  (Kansas City.com)

For this reason something said by Democrat Harry Reid (Senate majority leader) made sense to me.  ""It is time for the president to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation," he said. "That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed, working with the Democrats and Republicans in Congress on crafting a new way forward in Iraq, and refocusing our collective efforts on defeating al-Qa’eda."" (The Telegraph)  In the face of an actual threat, it seems as if America would be better off diverting the resources now going into Iraq into securing the---say it---"homeland." (The Telegraph   

On the other hand, it's also clear that Senator Reid is playing politics with the rest of them, so I don't want to seem to be endorsing him:  only this one statement.  It does seem like an odd time for the two parties to be engaging in a pissing contest, but there's a lot I don't understand about how politicians think. .

UPDATE:

Senators Warner and Lugar---"well-regarded on defence issues in the Republican party--- have drafted a bill "that would require President Bush by mid-October to come up with a plan to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq." (The Washington Post) 

The Warner-Lugar proposal specifically states that:

American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top. (The Washington Post) 

It also says:

Given continuing high levels of violence in Iraq and few manifestations of political compromise among Iraq's factions, the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future. (The Washington Post) 

---ROBIN

LINKS

1. President Unbowed as Benchmarks Are Unmet (The Washington Post)
2.  GOP Senators Draft Bill Requiring Bush to Narrow Mission of U.S. Troops (The Washington Post)
3. Al-Qaida terror threat growing, intelligence assessment says (Kansas City.com)
4. As the War Debate Heats Up,  Stagnant Air Is in the Forecast (The Washington Post)
5. US House votes for Iraq withdrawal by spring (The Independent)
6. Brown ally hints at new UK relations with US (The Telegraph)
7. Bush says US can still win 'ugly' Iraq war (The Telegraph)
8.  Brown: I will get UN support if we have 'another Iraq' (The Independent)
9. UK hints at foreign policy shift (BBC News)
10. Iraqi Military's Readiness Slips (The Washington Post)
11. Something Smells (Andrew Sullivan)
12. Initial Benchmark Assessment Report (Wall Street Journal Documents)