Ken Blanchard recently penned a post on whether the Democratic Congress or President Bush is responsible for U.S. policy towards Iraq. Robert Kagan has some thoughts:
The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do instead, other than perhaps go back to the Baker-Hamilton commission's vague plan for a gradual withdrawal. Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to cap the number of troops in Iraq at 137,500. No one explains why this is the right number, why it shouldn't be 20,000 troops lower or higher. But that's not really the point, is it?
Other critics claim that these are political cop-outs, which they are. These supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.
Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest and brave.
Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.
Certainly those who argue in a simple minded fashion that this is "Bush's war" (unintentionally?) play into the idea that the president has total war power and Congress can only stand on the sideline and watch. Yet, most in Congress voted for the war in Iraq. Even larger majorities continue to vote for funding for the war. They are responsible, too. Those who propose cutting off funding owe it to the public to explain what they think the outcome, short term and long term, will be for both the United States and the Middle East. They need to tell us how that future is better than the one proposed by President Bush. That's what statesmen would do. We, unfortunately, are plagued with mere politicians (what position will Senator Clinton hold this week?) and the hacks who support them.
Recent Comments