Congressional Democrats are finally assailing the Bush administration for the colossal mess it’s made of Iraq. Their criticism is long overdue.
Some proper shadow-governing has been demonstrated, for instance, by Dianne Feinstein. Bush “has got to give regular progress reports,” she said. “It has to be the president. It’s his war.” Or Ted Kennedy: “We have to look at holding the administration accountable for the current situation.” Just yesterday he aptly labeled the war a “consistently and grossly mismanaged … quagmire.” And Nancy Pelosi provided perhaps the most succinct depiction of the Iraq war: It was and is a “grotesque mistake.”
But in addition to criticizing, a few Democrats are making worrisome noises about wanting to help resolve what is a profoundly irresolvable problem. They should butt out and leave the management of Bush’s war where it belongs: in Bush’s lap.
For example Joe Biden warned Tuesday that an Iraqi implosion is “a real possibility.” True enough. But he added that the administration “should develop with Congress clear benchmarks and goals in key areas: security, governance and politics, reconstruction and burden-sharing.” Furthermore, Biden would “expect the administration to detail … what help [it needs] to in fact regain the initiative.”
Biden has some ideas along those lines. For instance other nations should “train Iraqi troops outside of Iraq” and we should “press our NATO allies to come up with a small force of some 3,000 to 5,000 to help guard Iraq’s borders.” That’s a nice thought, Senator, but other nations have stayed away from this mess because they knew better from the beginning. They still do.
Of course Sen. Biden knows better, too. He’s only being this hawkish -- as are other, yet-announced presidential candidates -- because he cares not to be vilified by professional right-wing vilifiers for being “soft” on national security. So we’ll give Joe a pass. We understand the cynical compromises necessary in a national campaign.
And then there was Barack Obama, who mused that “It is a challenge now to try to fix the mess that has been made by this administration.” Fix the mess? As in Democrats fixing the mess? As in fix what can’t be fixed, therefore go down in political flames with the criminals who lit the fire?
Because there is no fix, the truest course is to veer far away from the mechanics of Bush’s war. Just stand back and let the president and his party twist in the wind. Then again, Sen. Obama is likely eyeing a VP spot in 2008 -- so there’s another pass.
There are, however, maybe 50 congressional districts and a few senatorial swing states that might welcome, or at least be open to, some uncompromised honesty. In these locales the political task ahead could actually be straightforward.
On Hardball Wednesday night two retired generals and a colonel talked -- Chris Matthews was absent, so guests could talk -- about the grave situation on the ground in Iraq and how it could possibly be turned around. First, of course, more troops. Always, more troops. Good night, Iraq; Good morning, Vietnam. The much gloomier scenario went unaddressed: No amassing of foreign troops will ever resolve Iraq’s immense political, ethnic, tribal and sectarian divisions. Only years of Iraqi bloodshed, ultimate Iraqi exhaustion and perhaps even Iraq’s partition will do that. Sad, but all too true.
Which leaves many Democratic pols in the politically feasible position to advocate a U.S. pullout as America’s wisest choice. It certainly isn’t a good choice, but there are no good choices. Just as we did in Vietnam, sooner or later we’ll be forced to declare that nation’s inhabitants the new owners of a righteous land, pronounce them capable of defending themselves, and then wave goodbye as we head out for the airport (dodging bombs and bullets all the way). It might as well be sooner, not later. Either way we’ll create a nasty geopolitical vacuum and leave wounds behind that will take decades to mend.
But, as Democratic Rep. Michael Capuano said, “Mass civil war [in Iraq] today, or mass civil war a year from now. What's the difference? Five hundred kids.”
As voters become more familiar and less comfortable with this reality, the more disposed they’ll be to calls for withdrawal.
first, this is bush's war 100% and democrats should NEVER under any conceivable set of circumstances accept any responsibility for the war or 'fixing' it.
second, to be helpful, the democrats should propose the next defense authorization or off-budget iraq funding that the money can only be used to bring the troops home by the end of the fiscal year for which the money was appropriated. of course, the reich wingers will vote it down. NOT ONE democrat should vote for the final bill, explaining before the reich-wingers can get started that this is money to be used to kill more americans in an illegal war and they are the real party with a 'culture of life' and really support the troops by wanting them safe at home. no detailed plans, no offer to 'work with', nothing that could be considered compromise or 'fellow traveling'.
thirdly, if they just have to come up with a plan, here it is. give the iraqi government a date, after which we start leaving. any date will do, but nothing more than a year in the future. they will have to be ready to take care of themselves and their security needs, basically starting NOW because, during that year we move our troops to 1 or 2 major bases in the 3 major parts of the country: north, central, south. while there, the troops begin to get ready to leave. we make it clear to iraqis that if they don't hit us, we won't hit them. we're not going on the streets, no more patrols, etc. it's their country and they now have a government that is supposed to do these things. we'll have to leave a detachment of marines to guard the embassy (common practice in many of our diplomatic missions) of no more than 50-60. when our departure day arrives, we get on the planes and leave.
pollyanna-ish? why? is this plan any worse than what we've got now, which is a killing and maiming machine with no 'off switch'? i don't think so. i'm old enough to remember vietnam and the unending troop planes going there and the seemingly unending caskets coming off the planes at travis air force base, california. i don't ever want to see that again. i'm no pacifist and have spent my entire adult life as a commissioned officer of the usg, both military and civilian. i'd fight in a heartbeat to protect this country from invasion or real enemies. iraq is not the enemy and no more young americans should die so deserter bush can feel like a real man and hero rather than the wuss coward he really is.
Posted by: born free | June 24, 2005 at 10:48 AM
You can throw Hillary in there too and also Liberal ? Barney Frank made similar statements. In Fact most aipac connected politicians will continue the war.
Posted by: bob | June 24, 2005 at 01:01 PM
The Busheviks have no intention of leaving. They never had. That's why there was no exit strategy. Don't believe me? Why would they be building 14 large, permanant military bases and one gigantic embassy if they ever intended to leave? Iraq is the planned hub of the Middle Eastern region of the American (oil) empire. The region will be governed from that "embassy."
The "screw-ups" are intentional. Razing Fallujah? Torture? Leaked details of torture? They all stir up the insurgency. Then Bush can say "we broke it, we can't leave until we fix it" (and there is at least some international law which says the US commits a crime if it exits Iraq before it stabilizes). Of course, it never will get fixed, because there is a vicious spiral of retaliatory violence. Just how Bush wants it.
You want Iraq stable, with freedom for most? Install a strong dictator who will use secret police and torture to control the recalcitrants. Torture doesn't frighten people into passivity unless it is backed by an a large number of secret police who know the population and an extensive network of informants trusted by those secret police. Without the backup of secret police torture just incites violence. Where could you find somebody capable of doing the job? He was pulled out of a hole some months ago. The only way you'll stop Iraq fragmenting is to put Hussein back in power. He wasn't anywhere near as evil as Bush anyway.
Posted by: Brian de Ford | June 24, 2005 at 11:06 PM
All valid points around...
What makes this war so uniquely despicable is that, in addition to being predicated on lies (Hussein had WMD or some connection to al-Qaeda), it has been a war on civilians and the neocons refuse to accept responsibility for paying for it - foisting the financial burden on to future generations to pay for it, with interest...
This shameful confluence of dishonesty, disregard for basic human decency and fiscal irresponsibility is unique in American history.
Posted by: Stephen Kriz | June 25, 2005 at 09:07 AM
After already stealing over ten billion dollars in Iraqi oil revenues and U.S. tax dollars, do you really expect Bush/Cheneyer to pull out?
Better to work on changing the majority in Congress on election day, November 2006!
Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT | June 25, 2005 at 03:18 PM
"Grotesque Mistake" would be a great name for a rock band.
Oops, I'm not on Dave Barry's blog any more. Sorry.
Posted by: Kid Charlemagne | June 27, 2005 at 03:02 AM
I wonder if Biden is the member of US Congress who met with the rebels in mid-June?
Posted by: Nur al-Cubicle | June 27, 2005 at 04:21 PM