Another Congressional Democrat has shifted his views on Iraq. Rep. Brian Baird, one of the Democrats who voted against the authorization to use military force in 2002, has returned from Iraq convinced that General David Petraeus needs more time:
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.
"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.
"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."
Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.
Baird clearly states there are two criteria that changed his views. One, a withdrawal would devastate Iraq and be devastating to the region and our national interest. Second, Baird believes Petraeus has made real progress, and does not want to leave while success can sill be achieved.
This forces Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats into a tough spot. They had hoped to upend the administration's support on the Hill when Petraeus gives his report in September, but now they must worry about corralling the Blue Dogs and even some original war opponents. What happens if a significant number of Congressional Democrats say they're willing to stay long to ensure the job is completed properly, while presidential candidates are pressing for an immediate withdrawal?
Recent Comments