“‘Setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure.'” As expected, Dubya vetoed the recent Iraq spending bill passed in Congress, only the second time he’s exercised his veto power (the first being stem cells.) And, with few options at their disposal and a veto-override failing in the House 222-203, the Dems have already dropped their troop-withdrawal timetable, and now look to fashion a compromise using the language of benchmarks. “‘I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks,’ said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin…White House officials are also looking to benchmarks as an area of compromise, but they want them to be tied to rewards for achievement, not penalties for failure.” Um, what achievements would those be, and how would we evaluate them? It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations all over again. Four years after “Mission Accomplished, I don’t see how we can feasibly expect this administration to offer anything other than the same rose-scented lies about the chaos in Baghdad. They have no other setting.
Category: The Middle East
Congress Steps Up.
“‘How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?’ asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. ‘How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush’s foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough.’” By a vote of 218-208 in the House and 51-46 in the Senate, the Democratic Congress — living up to their promise in 2006 — calls for a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. Dubya has said several times that he’ll veto the bill, and is expected to do so in short order.
Remember Mogadishu.
“None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.” In an editorial for Salon, Sen. Russ Feingold invokes GOP behavior on Somalia in 1993 to make the case for Congress cutting funding in Iraq. “Since President Bush has made it painfully clear that he has no intention of fixing his failed Iraq policy, it is no longer a question of if Congress will end this war; it is a question of when.”
The House: Get Out.
By a vote of 218-212 and with only two Republicans joining the majority, the House votes on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: “The bill would establish strict standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops before their deployment and lay down binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government, such as assuming control of security operations, quelling sectarian violence and more equitably distributing oil revenue. If progress is not made toward those benchmarks, some troops would be required to come home as early as July. In any event, troop withdrawals would have to begin in March 2008, with all combat forces out by Aug. 31, 2008.” For now, and as with the persecuted prosecutors, Dubya is trying to play the partisanship card, and, in any case, the bill has a tough road to hoe in the Senate, where similar legislation received only 48 votes last time around. But, give them credit: While navigating a few defections on either side of the issue, Speaker Pelosi & co. put money where their mouths were last election season. Indeed, the WP deems the bill “one of the toughest antiwar measures ever to pass a house of Congress during combat operations.”
Target: Ahmadinejad.
With an international dispute over 15 seized British sailors simmering to a boil in Tehran and Ahmadinejad cancelling his trip to New York in protest, the UN Security Council unanimously opposes sanctions against Iran for its continuing nuclear program (details.) “‘The impact is primarily political rather than practical,’ said Abbas Milani, the director of Stanford University’s Iranian studies program. The financial and military restrictions are ‘rather limited and toothless,’ but they are having a profound psychological impact on investors and eroding Ahmadinejad’s standing in Iran, he said.“
Echoes of Aguinaldo?
“It was a war that the United States had not planned, and did not expect, to fight. It was a war in which the superiority of American civilization was supposed to bring grace to a foreign people. It was a war that the United States seemed to win quickly and with ease, but that somehow did not end.” Over at Slate, historian David Silbey ponders what the Phillippine War of 1899-1902 tells us about Iraq. Silbey’s emphasis on political counterinsurgency seems sound, but, given that the Philippines wasn’t on the verge of a sectarian civil war at the time, I’m not sure his strategy for victory plays out in Baghdad, particularly at this late date.
Kiley Kicked.
“I submitted my retirement because I think it is in the best interest of the Army…We are an Army Medical Department at war, supporting an Army at war. It shouldn’t be and it isn’t about one doctor.”” The brewing scandal over mismanagement at Walter Reed claims another victim in Army Surgeon General Kevin Kiley. “Ongoing probes could lead to more firings, two defense officials said yesterday.“
Karl’s Truman Show.
The wheels may have come off the Bush bandwagon several months ago, but that’s not stopping Karl Rove from trying to finesse Dubya’s place in the history books. And, like his boss, Karl seems to be attempting the Truman route: “In the West Wing interview, Rove adopted a longer view, citing the policy of containment of the Soviet Union, adopted by Truman in the 1940s and then embraced by a succession of presidents despite initial misgivings, as reason to believe history may offer a kinder assessment of the durability of Bush policies and institutional changes.” Hmm. When it comes to the war on terror, somehow I doubt dropping the ball in Afghanistan to prosecute a badly-bungled war of choice in Iraq is going to look any better to future generations. Just a hunch.
Feeling the Walter-weight.
In a story unfolding last week that I’m behind on posting on, Dubya goes the bipartisan commission route to try to take the sting out of the brewing scandal over mismanagement at Walter Reed (and other military hospitals) that has already resulted in two firings and some contentious congressional hearings. “Good leadership should have taken these steps long ago, without prompting by a series of embarrassing news articles,’ said Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the committee’s chairman[.]”
As England Goes…?
“What all of this means is not that Basra is how we want it to be. But it does mean that the next chapter in Basra’s history can be written by Iraqis.” While the Dubya administration continue to press for its “surge,” Prime Minister Tony Blair announces the withdrawal of 1600 troops from Iraq, leaving approximately 5,500 British soldiers in the now Shiite-controlled region of Basra. [video.] “Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said though the British and American strategies appear to be opposite, they will achieve the same end: a consolidation of Shiite power in Iraq. The British have already acquiesced to a ‘situation of quiet sectarian cleansing’ in the south, and their decision to pull out of Basra simply marks ‘acceptance of a political reality’ of Shiite control in the region.“