On Tuesday, the US Senate defeated a resolution that would've demanded a timetable for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. They did, however, require that the president provide regular reports on the situation in Iraq; this demand to be kept in the loop is a shocking departure for a Congress that had long resisted this Constitutional duty and it will certainly infuriate a White House that loathes accountability.
I've never called for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, much to the ire of people who normally agree with me on most things. Setting a timetable would allow the bad guys* a chance to 'run out the clock' as you might say.
[*-'Bad guys' being defined as those who massacre or otherwise target Iraqi civilians engaged in such highly political, collaborationist practices as, gasp!, holding a wedding party. Atrocities which should undermine legitimacy for their causes in the eyes of anyone who cares one iota about human rights]
While a timetable for withdrawal at this point** would be militarily foolish and a betrayal of the country that Americans voluntarily decided to ruin, that doesn't mean the public should be deprived of specifics altogether.
[**-I would, however, have no problem with a future withdrawal if either a) Iraq were capable of running its own country, b) the Iraqi government asked us to leave or c) US/UK forces were replaced by a UN peacekeeping/nation-building mission, since they have competence and experience in those things... or an Arab League one, since maybe the Arab countries could be told to put up or shut up]
The president and his apologists insist, "We must stay the course." They insist that 'premature withdrawal' would be disastrous.
If the administration wants to shore up flagging public support for the war and plummeting trust in President Bush's ethics and judgement, then they need to get specific. What is this course we must stay? At what point will withdrawal be timely, rather than premature?
Even the most diehard war supporters claim (perhaps with a wink and a nod) that they don't want US troops in Iraq forever, that Iraq will not be an American colony. If setting a specific date for American withdrawal would be wrong, what about specific EVENTS that would trigger or lead toward American withdrawal? What are the EVENTS that must occur for the exit strategy (if one exists) to be implemented?
Some argue that the presence of American troops is doing more harm than good. Even aside from Abu Ghraib and allegations of chemical weapons use, the American military is creating a culture of dependency that is slowing down the quest of Iraqis for self-sufficiency. Some argue that we are doing more harm than good because American troops remain a target of the insurgency and the American presence is a powerful recruiting tool both for insurgents in Iraq and terrorists outside it. That we have no long-term plan, clue or idea about anything furthers the belief in some quarters that we'll be their forever. Is this all paranoid? Perhaps. But US troops remain in Korea 52 years after the fighting stopped on the peninsula.
The 'Bring them home now' movement is getting stronger every day. The only way the administration can defuse this movement is by dropping their hostilty to self-critique and develop a coherent vision for a future Iraq to sell. A vision based in reality, pragmatism and the acknowledgement that a future sovereign Iraq might want to retain control of their natural resources; a vision not based on the self-delusion they relied upon before the invasion. The administration need to explain to people what the ultimate goals of this mission are, especially since the original reasons for the aggression have been discredited. And the goals have to be specific, concrete objectives, not some vague, manipulative pap about 'fighting Evil' or 'opposing terror.' People may be more inclined to patience if they know what they're looking for even if they don't know exactly when they're going to find it.
No comments:
Post a Comment