A recent headline in the New York Times read: ” For Democrats, Many Verses But No Chorus”. The article goes on to note that whilst Democrats have many issues on which to run against Republicans in the fall election, they cannot yet agree on a single theme. Yet it could also apply to the failure of the Democrats in Congress to find consensus on how and when to extricate our armed forces from the morass that is Iraq.
It’s not surprising, of course, because there are no easy answers to the quandary. Opinions run the gamut from immediate withdrawal to a dwindling band of “stay the coursers” although, like Mr Bush himself, they have no real idea what that means.
Democrats, too, are hampered by the fact that many voted to give the Bush administration authority to invade Iraq in the first place. This fact is related to another challenge that Democrats face - the perception that they are “soft” on national security in general, and the war on terrorists in particular. There is little doubt that, whatever their public statements to the contrary, it was this perception - one which Republicans have successfully created and exploited for many years- that led Democrats who should have known better to throw their support behind the Bush administration in its folly. This fear of appearing soft on national security has caused Democrats to be tremulous in their support of Senator John McCain in his fight to have torture and abuse taken out of the administration’s playbook, surely an issue on which they stood have been out front; and equally so on such civil liberties issues as the renewal of the Patriot Act and the illegal eavesdropping of Americans’ overseas communications.
Yet surely the time is ripe for the Democrats to come together behind a strategy to place a deadline on the continued presence of American forces in Iraq. The Iraqis are sick of us being there as the occupiers we have become, and a new poll shows that more than 70% of U.S. troops serving there want out. The latter is without doubt the most telling. The Zogby poll showed that most of our troops feel that as much has been done as can be done in Iraq and that from here on it has to be up to the Iraqi people. Undoubtedly the soldiers’ views are influenced, too, by the fact that the vast majority of Americans have clearly soured on the Iraq commitment.
The arguments against setting a deadline appear less and less convincing. For example, one often cited is that a deadline simply encourages the insurgents to hang in until we’re gone. My answer is: so what? Our troops are very well trained and have fought with commendable bravery. They cannot, however, win this fight. In part this is because the American army is manifestly ill-suited to and was ill-prepared for fighting an insurgency, a fact that should, undoubtedly, be the subject of intensive soul-searching by the Pentagon when we finally extricate ourselves from this mess. How could we have fought so long in Vietnam and learned so little from the experience?
More critically, this is a fight that only Iraqis can win. Our soldiers cannot and should not be some sort of surrogate militia for the Shiite majority in Iraq. If Iraqis are determined to have a civil war, there is nothing our forces can do to prevent it; but with our departure the Sunni insurgents cannot lay the justification for their violence on resistance to a foreign occupation And we have sacrificed enough to give Iraq the opportunity to find its own way. A deadline for our withdrawal will serve to focus the minds of the political and religious leadership of all factions on the need to come together - or fall into the pit. Yes, even greater chaos may reign after our withdrawal to be sure; or the different factions can hash out a deal that will mean a stable nation. It is and should be their choice.
Even as the polls are dismal for Bush and the Republicans on the issue of Iraq, few believe that the Democrats offer an alternative vision. Small wonder, since they don’t at the moment. It is past time for Democrats to enunciate a clear policy for the phased withdrawal of ground forces from Iraq, to be completed by, say, June 30, 2007, and to make it a clear policy alternative to the stay-the-course nonsense of the Bush administration in the fall campaign season. The plan should renounce any intention to keep a permanent military presence in Iraq. It should include a proposal that American advisors to Iraqi units, logistical and close air support assets remain in the country to assist local forces for a while, say a further six months, after which they too would be withdrawn.
The proposal is hardly new or radical. Variations on the same essential plan have been floated for many months. The Bush administration itself is moving toward the same end but simply refuses to say so. The saying, however, is critical. It serves notice on the Iraqis of all factions, religious, tribal, ideological, that there is an end in sight for the American occupation and that they must come together if they are to avoid catastrophe; it demonstrates to the world and, most importantly to Iraqis, that we seek no ulterior benefit such as permanent military bases or control of Iraq’s oil; and it places a limit on the sacrifices we are willing to make for Iraq.
It is not enough for Democrats in Congress to rub their hands gleefully as public sentiment about the Iraq imbroglio becomes increasingly sour. The party must offer an alternative vision on this and many other issues on which they appear all too reticent.
The American electorate is ready for a change in the way they are governed. You cannot, however, replace something with nothing.
.
0 Responses to “It’s Time to Set a Deadline - Democrats Are You Listening?”