The Gates Gift To Democrats?
Somehow, we missed the extraordinarily provocative words of Defense Sec. Robert Gates , as reported this morning by the Washington Post:
The debate in Congress . . . has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment."
Does that not justify the actions of the Democratic Congress? Does not that not undermine the Bush Administration's argument that the debate itself is sending precisely the most unhelpful signal possible to the Iraqis? And doesn't this undermine the general Republican contention that the Democrats really have no power -- constitutional or moral -- to influence the course of reconciliation?
Sen. Barack Obama is the first Dem '08er to pick up on the remark:
"After the President has repeatedly ignored the will of Congress and the American people, his own Secretary of Defense now recognizes that the only way to pressure the Iraqi government toward a political settlement is to make clear that American troops will not be in Iraq forever. President Bush has had a long history of ignoring the advice of his commanders on the ground, but let’s hope that he follows the advice of his Defense Secretary so that we can finally begin the process of ending the war in Iraq in a responsible way.”
All in Washington agree that the keys to any semblance of success in Iraq (i.e., avoidance of complete catastrophe for Iraqis and American interests) are political reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis (meeting benchmarks for sharing oil revenue, partly reversing de-Baathification, etc.) and the creation of effective, nonsectarian military and security forces, yet the debate in Washington is reduced to an artificial, bipolar dichotomy.
Many/most Democrats' desired message to Iraqi's (mainly Shiite) leaders: "We're leaving at a specified time whether or not you meet key benchmarks." This sends the message to our friends there that they can't count on us, so they better focus on winning the civil war and maintaining alliances with extremist militias, and sends the message to our enemies that they can wait us out.
Many/most Republicans' desired message to Iraqi leaders: "We're staying in full force whether or not you meet key benchmarks." This sends the message that the Shiite leaders can continue resisting making any concessions to Sunnis or progress on military/security benchmarks, and they can continue using us to fight the Sunnis indefinitely.
My suggested message: "We're staying in full force as long as you start & continue meeting key benchmarks, but we're leaving (or at least substantially reducing our force and role) if you don't." In particular, we will stop policing your civil war in Baghdad and focus on al Qaeda targets in Anbar province and perhaps patrolling the borders to reduce infiltration of foreign fighters and arms.
It would be irresponsible to abandon the Iraqi effort IF it has a chance of preventing or mitigating a catastrophe (including potential genocide, regional war and instability, strengthened al Qaeda and Iran, general loss of U.S. credibility that will be needed to confront future threats, and much higher oil prices), but maintaining a policy that does not force Iraqi leaders to act in ways that give that effort a chance to succeed is equally irresponsible, if not more so, since it only delays the inevitable all-out civil war and wastes American lives and resources in the meantime. Why not take a sensible approach?
Somebody is going to be losing their newly appointed job real soon...