Democrats and Republicans alike are struggling with the
problem of Iraq and how to approach it. Within the
Democratic party there may be as many ideas as there are members of Congress,
but the primary split appears to be between those who believe that a proposal
that sets benchmarks and a time table for Iraqi government performance will not
lead to redeployment of our troops home quickly enough, while others worry that
setting benchmarks and a timetable will expose the Democrats to charges of
micro managing a military engagement. The discussion in Democratic circles have
zeroed in on three continuing commitments after US troop redeployment that will require some continued US military presence: 1) training
the Iraqi police, security and military forces; 2) protecting our forces,
personnel and installations; and 3) continuing special operations against al
Qaeda and other anti-American terrorists. In this context they would ramp up pressure on the Sunnis and Shiites to
compromise, reduce the area of US occupation, resize the US military presence, and focus on the direct threats to US security such as a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.
For their part, in an excess of apparent defeatism, some
Republicans are hoping to keep a lid on the war and extend the problem into the
next administration in the expectation that a Democratic president would have
to take ownership of the Iraq war. It is hoped that this would have
long term legacy implications for the Democratic Party as it faced the prospect
of failure and chaos in Iraq or the necessity to commit even more troops. President Bush has made it clear
in his public statements that this war will not be ended in his
administration. In short, at least for
some political operatives, the current discussion may have less to do with
concern for our troops or US national interests than for which party is going
to take the blame for Iraq. The ghost of Vietnam is hovering around these
discussions.
I do not believe that the bulk of our elected representatives are so cynical that they would put politics and Party above the lives of our troops or the national interest. But it is certainly suspicious that the Democrats have picked the target date of March 2008 for the beginning of redeployment while the President is saying the problem is up to the next administration to solve. Is it all about the timetable?
The poll makes clear that since 2005 Iraqi confidence in the future has deteriorated with 39% saying things were bad in 2005 and 50% saying they are bad today. At the same time attitudes toward the US have dropped like a rock. Of all the countries proposed, including Iran and Syria, the US and UK had the highest negatives. What is most disturbing is that 51% felt that attacks on coalition forces were acceptable compared to 17% in 2004. More Iraqis now believe that the US invasion was wrong. Iraqis, in fact, gave the US and UK a ringing vote of no confidence with 82% saying they had no confidence in the US and UK occupation forces and 77% saying they had done a bad job. They also say that the surge will make things worse and 35% say we should leave now. That has to raise some questions about why we are in Iraq. In fact, Iraq has sucked the air out of most talk in our government about democracy in the entire region. Iraq so dominates the political agenda that politicians and policy makers have little time to consider the war on terror or the spread of democracy. As we look for help from Arab governments, including Syria and Iran, it would appear that our government believes it would be churlish and counterproductive to simultaneously criticize their performance on democracy or human rights.
In February of 2007 the Australian Prime Minister John Howard commented on the negative aspects of the two party political system in the United States. Prime Minister Howard openly criticized the Democratic presidential hopeful, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, for his support of a time table for evacuating Iraq. Howard said that if Obama was elected in 2008 terrorist organizations would be pleased. Howard even went so far as to say, "I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory" Prime Minister Howard has historically been a close friend to President Bush and his Republican party. Howard’s comments illustrate the international interests and political ramifications of the 2008 elections in the US.
As noted by President Bush, the Iraqi conflict will not end with his administration. Iraq and the war on terror will continue to be major issues that, “sucks the air out of most talk in our government about democracy in the entire region”. I believe that due to Iraq we have over extended ourselves in the Middle East. We are currently not in any position to properly promote democracy on an international level. The Iraqi conflict has drastically hindered our international perception. It is not difficult for countries like Syria, Iran, and even Saudi Arabia to turn on CNN and see what is happening in Iraq. Bottom line, we have made a mess and now we have to clean it up.
Unfortunately for American soldiers this conflict is not going to resolve it self over night, it is going to take time. Some journalists even go so far to promote the parallels between the Iraqi conflict and the Vietnam War. I personally feel that that those correlations are over-dramatized and far fetched. America is in a difficult military conflict and with the 2008 elections on the horizon many uncertainties remain. I feel that it would be a terrible mistake to turn our back on the mess we helped create in Iraq. I feel that Prime Minister Howard’s comments are somewhat on track in regards to the problems that troop removal in 2008 would have. Iraq needs our support and assistance at this point in time more than any. The United States can help mold the Iraqi government into a beacon of justice and democracy. Nothing worth while is easy, and that is why we need to maintain our presence in Iraq. With assistance and guidance Iraq can become our statue of liberty in the Middle East, promoting the concept of democracy and freedom.
Posted by: John Fleming | March 25, 2007 at 08:44 PM
As Ambassador Walker seems to point out, the majority of Republicans and Democrats have begun to realize the Iraq War was a lost cause from the start. And they do not want the blame placed on themselves. The debate within Democratic circles has been focused on drawing up plans for a timeline to pull out the troops within the next year. The Ambassador informs us the Democrats focus many of their debates on the training of Iraqi police and security forces, the protection of American troops, and the continuation of special operations against Al-Qaeda. My question in all of this is: What do the Democrats think the military has been attempting to do in the past four years in Iraq? To be fair, the Republicans and the Bush Administration should have listened to our high ranking military officials from the start (after all, they are our nation’s war experts)- we were not in a position to wage war in Iraq at the time. Moreover, they should have known of the possibility for lack of support for the war from their Democratic counterparts.
It seems to me the Iraq War is a lost cause. The President will not end the war during his administration. The Democrats will not support any of the needed measures for funding the war. The Republicans will continue to label the Democrats as unpatriotic. Young Americans will continue to die in Iraq. And no one wants to suck it up and either support a full fledged effort to support the cause or pull out completely.
Posted by: William Schick | April 01, 2007 at 11:45 PM
I find it both worrisome and comical that the two parties in our government are trying to place the blame of the war on one another by delaying or rushing our military strategies. In both cases there will be substantial consequences for their actions. Do they have any concern for the millions of people they represent or just their party images?
Judging by the reported numbers in the blog 51% of Iraqis felt that attacks on coalition forces were acceptable compared to 17% in 2004. If the Republicans prolong the war in order to lift the blame off the Bush Administration there could be increasing hostility to our troops. Within three years acceptability of attacks on the forces grew 44% if we wait one or two more years it good increase substantially. Are the Republicans really that conniving and concerned with their image that they would sacrifice human lives along with billions in taxpayers’ money to protect their reputation? While, I would hope not I am still seriously concerned at their outlook when they don’t have an end in sight and are just letting the snowball continue to roll down the mountain growing in human causalities and money.
Yet, at the same time are the Democrats really concerned about getting the troops out of there or are they concerned with winning the elections in 2008 and not having to deal with the Iraqi problem? While I applaud their choices for continued commitments after redeployment, I question the time frame and reasoning behind it. If we pull at too soon Iraq may fall into a civil war with no one but the U.S. to blame. Moreover, the area will continue to breed terrorism as its relations with Iran and Syria continue to grow. I don’t think we need to have set deadlines. I think we need to have a rough timeline with room to move. Nothing is set in stone especially in a tumultuous situation like Iraq to put a date on it could be problematic. Pull the forces out one step at a time and evaluate the situation after each step to see where we stand as opposed to blind pullouts to hit deadlines.
On the question of democracy, I can honestly say in all the news about Iraq I don’t think I have heard the words democracy and Iraq in the same broadcast. While I wish there was some magical way to make democracy in Iraq work this second there isn’t. It takes time, patience, cooperation, and understanding which no one in our government seems to have anymore. I think they have given up on helping Iraq and are more concerned with helping themselves especially on the heels of working with Syria and Iran. That’s news to me, so much for sticking to principles.
Posted by: Brittany Horn | April 02, 2007 at 05:38 PM
With the majority in the House and Senate and the 2008 election rapidly approaching, Democrats on Capital Hill feel like they finally have input and a chance to change the course in Iraq. Unfortunately, rather than using this to their advantage it often seems that both parties are not attempting to directly deal with the problem in Iraq, but instead using their strategies for Iraq as a tool for their respective 2008 Presidential campaigns.
With a long history of bloodshed and poor relations between the three main ethnic groups in Iraq, it seems that Iraq is one of the least promising countries in the region to develop Democracy. However, as much as both parties might like to forget we cannot change the fact that we chose the war in Iraq as our signature battle in the Middle East. As we can see from the USA Today poll, the citizens of Iraq believe that the situation is worsening, do not seem to want Democracy, and their opinion of the United States and the United Kingdom is quickly deteriorating. Nevertheless, if we were to withdraw troops without restoring security to Iraq we would only worsen our image in Iraq further. This in turn would hurt our image throughout the region as well and increase the sentiment that has lead to our problems with terrorism and Islamic fundamentalists over the last decade.
By scaling back the number of our troops and concentrating more on training Iraqi forces and protecting key areas, our troops would be free to focus on larger threats from terrorist groups throughout the region. In addition, with fewer casualties United States’ citizens would be more receptive to diplomatic options such as partnering with countries in the region to stabilize Iraq. By working with countries in the region such as Iran and Syria we would still be working to secure Iraq but would not be as much of a hands on force. This could help to alleviate the argument by Islamic extremists that the United States’ is interfering and attempting to assert influence in the region. This would also help to strengthen relations within the region and prevent future conflicts with countries like Iran. By implementing a strategy such as this the United States’ could use the success in Iraq as an example of the new United States and our changed foreign policy in the region. This would serve to change the perspective of the United States’ abroad and would reduce some of our recent problems with terrorism. As taxing as this may be and as tempting as it may be for both Republicans and Democrats to use the War in Iraq and withdrawal as a political tool, it is time for both parties to work together to develop a plan no matter how long the timeline might be. In conclusion, this is an opportunity for our foreign policy that we cannot afford to miss and it is clear that if we were to withdraw in the near future the effects in the long run would be devastating for the United States.
Posted by: Robert Rosenzweig | April 02, 2007 at 05:42 PM
I think the current situation regarding Iraq and the two major political parties illustrates one of the flaws of Democracy. Ideally the people that we vote into office are elites who would be people of good intelligence and judgment to do what is best for the country and the citizen that supports them. However, it seems to me that most politicians are more concern about supporting policies that will get them re-elected than what they truly think is best for the country. The Democrats and Republicans are pushing the blame of Iraq on each other. I think that the current situation in Iraq is as much the Republican responsibility and the Democrats. The Democrats did vote for the war on Iraq, but now they say that they were misguided by the Republican Party. However, I question how many senators actually read the report on Iraq at the time. I feel that if they did then they might have seen the flaws in the reports.
The point is that the current political tension between the parties will only make democracy worst. As ambassador Walker has pointed out, the Iraq people would rather see a strong leader than democracy. The lack of leadership and continuance of finger pointing will only make the Iraq people more impatient and doubts democracy’s ability to make changes. With the constant debate it congress, at the end of the day a lot is said than done. Even if we do have want to pull out of Iraq, it is not as easy as just sending our troops home, but we also have to do some clean up before we leave and that requires proper planning. If politicians keep on blocking or vetoing policies because they don’t want to take the blame for Iraq, then I am afraid the Iraq people will grow tired of waiting for change and when that point comes, it will be impossible for the United States to push for democracy in Iraq.
Posted by: vivon ung | April 02, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Jumping the Gun
Karl Zinsmeister visit to Hamilton College in 2003 was an engaging and captivating experience. He shared his experiences as a reporter with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq, 2003. He was the only reporter at the time to conduct a survey of how Iraqis felt to the new (at that time) occupation of U.S. troops. The survey asked citizens of Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk, and Ramadi about how long they would like to see American and British coalition forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? His survey concluded about 66% of those urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year. He also asked Iraqis if they thought the United States would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. The survey indicated that 50% to 36 % chose hurt over help. With 2008 approaching and considering the current condition of Iraq and the recent polls of USA Today, it would seem that Iraqis were initially correct in their statement that coalition forces would hurt rather than help their country over a five-year period. If Iraqis knew U.S. coalition forces were going to cause greater danger to the state of Iraq in five-year period in 2003, why didn’t anyone listen?
Iraq, with a weak central government, a divided society, and regular sectarian violence, is no more a beacon of democracy for the Middle East. Iraq’s problems will remain messy for years to come, but whose mess is it to clean up? Does the U.S. bear responsibility or do we dump it on the shoulders of the impoverished Iraqis? And what happens if a Sadaam-like dictator reemerges into power from the Shiite majority, and begins to ostracize and punish Sunnis the same way Shiites were suppressed, penalized and tortured during Sadaam’s reign? From an outsider’s view, it would appear that the American government has a tendency of schizophrenia. The U.S. needs a consistent rubric to apply to U.S. foreign intervention policies, if the U.S. is ever to resolve any future Iraq situation. Timetables, prolonged occupation, and presidential pride over the lives of U.S. coalition forces will only make present matters worse. Will the U.S. ever enter another Iraq war for “the sake of democracy”? If it does, I hope it thinks twice before jumping the gun.
Posted by: Kenji | April 03, 2007 at 12:01 PM
As democracy continues to struggle in Iraq, the most pressing issue is that the democratic partisan formations may in fact reinforce and/or deepen rigid group distinctions. This is due to the fact that conflicting regional and ethnic interests characterize the partisan groups forming in the country. Moving forward in Iraq, how should government power be distributed between central and local agencies? And will democracy be enough to end sectarian violence, or does it, in fact, propagate these conflicts? No matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican it is becoming increasingly clear that democracy and human rights do not grow together. The data from the USA today poll attests to this fact, the onset of democracy has done more to destabilize the country than bring security. Democracy has also begun to change the face of the entire region of the Middle East with the “Shia revival” that appears to be occurring. There is no doubt that the presence of the United States is not being well received in Iraq or the Middle-East as a whole, but the timetable should not focus solely on when we will retrench, but more importantly when we will effectively bring stability to the country. If we are unable to achieve some sort of lasting peace, the US may be viewed as being directly responsible for causing one of the bloodiest conflicts in recent history after we pull out of Iraq. This responsibility will fall on the whole country not just Democrat or Republican politicians.
Posted by: Michael Daley | April 03, 2007 at 12:45 PM
The Democrats and the Republicans are in a battle. The war has spiraled out of control, and the primary concern is how to de-escalate the war effort without creating an international incident, destroying a country, and looking bad in the international community. Blame for the war will eventually fall on one party, and each side is pitched in strategic battle to prevent it from being theirs. Regardless, it seems as though the Democratic Party is going to need to be the ones to solve this problem.
Bush is actively pressing for a new budget proposal, but he is also set to veto any bill that doesn’t meet his liking. The Democrats know this. Since they have recently acquired a majority in the Senate, they have a much larger role to play in the process. But they also have more to lose if they don’t act accordingly. The Republicans have taken a strong stance in their position. Bush doesn’t want the war to end during his presidency. I believe it is up to the democrats to work even harder to attempt to get the war timetable on schedule as soon as possible. This will of course be no easy task with Bush on the veto trigger. To me the biggest lose here is our original focus. As you said in your blog it is clear now that the democratization of Iraq is on the back burner, and domestic political responsibility has become important. The problem here is going to be for the Democrats. They are going to be burdened with solving the “Iraq problem.”
One of the real questions we face: how do you do the right thing in a conflict that almost nobody wants? Furthermore, what is the right thing to do? Who are the decisions being made for? Americans who want their soldiers out, or the Iraqi people and their country which is on the verge of imploding? In American politics, domestic approval ratings come first. Political parties want firstly to come out on top. It is likely that a tactful pullout orchestrated by the Democrats will be the ultimate decision even if it means leaving the country worse off then when we found it.
Posted by: Dave Boucher | April 03, 2007 at 04:29 PM
This article is an important and accurate analysis of how the US government’s attitude and goals have been transformed since the beginning of the war. The most powerful and unfortunately telling line in this article says, “In short, at least for some political operatives, the current decision may have less to do with concern for our troops or US national interests than for which party is going to take the blame for Iraq.” Although Democrats and Republicans alike place a high price on the lives of US soldiers, both parties have somewhat abandoned their goals of achieving democracy in Iraq and have focused much of their attention on when to pull troops out of Iraq and ultimately when the war will finally end.
Unfortunately, neither political party has garnered much positive international attention. Although Republicans are eager to pull troops out of Iraq with a complete and functioning democracy in place they have begun to understand that these goals are a bit far-fetched. Therefore, instead of being blamed for a failed mission that has taken the lives of thousands of US troops, seriously depressed the US economy, and has attracted negative attention from the international community, Republicans are now hoping to simply pass the baton over to the Democrats in an effort to dodge the bullet. In a statement from President Bush, he said, “the problem is up to the next administration to solve.” However, the Democrats have “picked the target date of March 2008 for the beginning of redeployment.” Therefore, it is clear that both parties are making efforts to transfer the blame of the US government’s failing attempts to impose democracy in Iraq on each other.
Regardless of party affiliation, it is important to look at the facts and statistics before making an educated and rational decision to either continue fighting in Iraq or to bring US troops home. After studying polls taken by USA Today in March, it is quite clear that “the longer we, the Americans stay, the further away we get from democracy in Iraq.” This grim statement should be a wake-up call for this administration and should motivate Republicans to settle for taking the blame in order to bring US troops home safely and prevent the loss of more lives, more money, and more negative attention. Although this scenario would require the Republicans to take a large amount of the blame for the war, they will still be able to place the responsibility on the Democrats of dealing with the aftermath and repercussions the war will have on Iraq and on the US military, government, economy, and reputation.
When the US first invaded Iraq the US government had a clear goal in mind and believed that it would be relatively easy to accomplish and would never imagined that it could have gone as badly as we see it has today. The fact that approval ratings are decreasing, Iraqi interest in adopting a democracy has shrunk, and both Republicans and Democrats are trying to pin the blame on one another are all reasons for redeploying troops as quickly as possible. Finally, although Republicans may have to “step up” and take the blame by redeploying troops before President Bush’s term is up, they will most likely be able to place the responsibility of cleaning up the mess on the Democrats, if they win the next presidential election.
Posted by: Daniel Laub | April 03, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Ambassador Walker’s post on the current situation in Iraq highlights exactly how this blunder is negatively affecting US foreign policy in the entire region. America has lost its claim as an altruistic power in the region and this is strikingly apparent by the lack of political pressure it can place on nations like Iran and Syria. America is now so deeply entrenched in the war in Iraq that there is no space for agendas that push human rights and spread democracy peacefully. Although this troubling for America as it may indeed lead to security threats in the future, the true victims of this development are those suffering in oppressive regimes throughout the Middle East. America was once a beacon of light in the region; a positive force that could truly help the Middle East reform and improve the lives of its inhabitants. Now, America has misplaced its drive to reform in a bloody and embarrassing war that will not have a happy ending. In the end, Americans will endure little hardship from this mistake (with the exception of the military and military families) while Iraqis are dying by the thousands and as the rest of the region bears the brunt of a Middle East without America to watch over it and speak for those who have no voice. As the politics of the “blame game” play out in Washington, the true losers will be suffering not just in Iraq, but in the whole of the Middle East for years to come.
Posted by: Zachary Gill | April 03, 2007 at 04:40 PM
Instead of focusing on a timetable to redeploy troops and return Iraq to Iraqi hands, democrats and republicans alike should shift their focus to state-building. Democracy has not failed in Iraq because democracy has yet to be tested. Instead of hastily holding an election and writing a constitution—a process which has only deemed US efforts futile—politicians should first focus on security and safety. It is more than suspicious that democrats have designed their redeployment agenda around the beginning of the next presidential term and that President Bush has already bestowed the Iraqi question upon the next administration. While I would like to believe that neither party would put politics or opportunism before our troops, the only way to convince me otherwise would be for politicians to suggest a state-building solution for the future instead of worrying about who is going to be blamed for the present.
Posted by: Emily Alinikoff | April 03, 2007 at 04:53 PM
The divisions in Congress over Iraq continue to cloud the true problems that must be addressed if any progress is going to take place in the Middle East. Republicans and Democrats have contrasting views regarding US troop withdrawal in Iraq. The Bush Administration’s most recent rhetoric stresses that this war will continue into the next presidency and will require ongoing US support; unfortunately this statement is accurate. The United States has a responsibility to leave Iraq with the necessary tools to start a functioning government, even if it does not meet the United State’s expectations for democracy. On the other hand, Democrats demand coherent exit strategies and redeployment time- tables that are necessary to ensure that this war does not dominate the next administrations foreign policy. Both the Bush Administration and leading Democrats are going to have to reach a compromise. The Democrats must acknowledge that some military operations are going to extend into the next presidential term and that the problems in Iraq will not go away, however, it is critical that the Bush Administration sets a clear and concise plan to establish some stability in the region. Ultimately, President Bush has a responsibility to the American people to end this conflict within his time in office; it is unreasonable and unethical to leave his political blunder in Iraq for another president. In fact, the Bush Administration should be focused on setting up a government that accommodates all Iraqis and one that is stable enough to stand independently of the United States.
With dwindling support from Iraqi citizens over US occupation, democracy, and their unstable government, President Bush must look beyond instituting a Western oriented democracy. Instead he should try to establish a government that can keep sectarian violence to a minimum. As the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites continue to fight, the Bush Administration must answer a difficult question; can these three different Islamic sects ever work together under a democratic government without continued violence and infighting? If the answer to this question is yes, then a strategy must be instituted that will bring stability to Iraq as soon as possible. This plan might involve other nations in the region taking a part in building the next government and it may not mimic Western democracy, but bringing immediate stability to region takes precedent over democratic idealism. However, if the answer to this question is no, then President Bush should make a coherent plan for withdrawing the majority of US forces before his time in office expires. Either way leaving an unstable Iraq for another administration is irresponsible and unacceptable. Ultimately, this Administration might have to put aside their commitment to democracy that they once preached and institute stability over freedom.
Posted by: Andrew Gumbiner | April 03, 2007 at 04:57 PM
“The ghost of Vietnam” certainly is hovering ominously around the war in Iraq. Radical Islamists and Iraqi civilians, deprived of the security and basic living conditions (access to electricity and reliable infrastructure) they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship-albeit a ruthless one, have become increasingly unreceptive to US military presence. Their mounting hostility translates into more than 3,100 dead American soldiers. Perhaps even more disturbing, we find in retrospect that the US missions in Vietnam and Iraq both resulted from the decisions of insular arrogant politicians who were intent on going to war and eager to manipulate the public with false (fabricated) intelligence. And despite the use of euphemistic rhetoric, “peace with honor,” to describe the Vietnam endgame, Americans certainly have not forgotten the disastrous outcome of that war.
Despite the looming presence of the Vietnam ghost, though, political machinations continue to eclipse the laundry list of far weightier concerns entangled in the Iraq War quagmire. It seems that these numerous problems of democratization and uncontrolled violence will remain unsolved in the short term while politicians and policymakers debate timetables. Undoubtedly, prospects for democracy in Iraq and the Middle East involve complex issues with profound implications for the future of the region and US national interest. And although the damage already done in Iraq is irreparable, simply retreating solves nothing. Crafting an acceptable plan of action therefore presents a daunting task, but US policymakers absolutely must address it humbly yet urgently and with a comprehensive and nuanced approach.
Posted by: Bridget White | April 03, 2007 at 05:19 PM
This article puts into focus a very valid point: everyone has lost focus in Iraq- Democrats, Republicans, and Iraqis alike.
Democrats and Republicans seem to be caught up in partisan bickering; each party is attempting to conclude the war in a fashion that will stain the opposing party. Democrats hope to set the pullout timetable during the Bush administration so that they don’t get stuck with the “hot potato” of the Iraq war, and the piece suggests that Republicans are equally attempting to burn the Democratic party by bequeathing the war onto a (highly likely) Democratic administration in 2008. Unfortunately this bickering draws focus from two very important aspects of the Iraq endeavor: what is best for the troops, and how to facilitate democracy in Iraq. Even more unfortunately, these soldiers and citizens can do nothing but suffer and wait as catty, elite political maneuverings prevent policymaking at their expense.
Congressional representatives are not the only ones who have lost focus: so have the Iraqis. The opinion polls cited in the piece clearly show that the desire and will to build a democratic society is steadily eroding among Iraqis. Furthermore, the disastrous effects of this war have dampened the democratic flame throughout the Middle East.
This piece effectively draws attention to a series of problems currently being overlooked in Iraq. Unfortunately, it did not offer any solutions, but then again, maybe there are none.
Posted by: Sara Feuerstein | April 03, 2007 at 10:16 PM
I would like to believe that our elected officials are doing what is in the best interest of our troops and the Iraqi people, but the “timetables” presented by each party have made me more than a little suspicious. Neither party is denying that something has gone terribly wrong, neither really seems to believe that “victory” (or even a true “mission accomplished”) remains feasible. The invasion of Iraq was supposed to be about more than just airlifting Americans into the country, and it is unlikely that just taking them out will accomplish what the U.S. set out to do in 2003.
Despite all of the efforts of the President to muddy his intentions in Iraq, at least two of his objectives are clear. We went into Iraq to depose Sadaam Hussein and to create an ally of the United States. We justified it to the world with the threat of WMD, and after that proved illusory we justified our actions as a way of promoting democracy in the Middle East. After 4 years in the quagmire, U.S. citizens are demanding results or their money (and their children) back.
The Republican Party has taken a huge hit from the perceived failure of our mission in Iraq. In an effort to distance themselves from the wreckage the Congressional wing of the GOP has discarded the idea of promoting democracy in the Middle East in favor of plans to bail out – early in the next Administration. The timing is not coincidental -- removal of U.S. troops will almost certainly aggravate instability and lead to at least short-run escalation of the current civil war.
The Congressional Democrats are hardly blemish free. Like the Republican Party they acknowledge that the troops should be withdrawn, but most want it to happen during this administration. Given the loss of 100 American lives per month, there is certainly a case for leaving – “Support our Troops: Bring them Home.” But many wonder if the difference in timetables is a product of politics or good intentions.
Given both the lack of support for the American presence at home and abroad it is no wonder that the favorite solution of many – including, it seems, the Iraqis themselves -- is simply to withdraw. The timetables set out only serve to blame the party who leaves Iraq and the inevitable blood bath that would follow. Neither party has come up with a realistic plan to go along with the withdrawal of troops that has any hope of encouraging stability or gives Democracy in Iraq a ‘fighting’ chance.
What do the polls show? They show the displeasure of a people who are seeing their children dying for a multitude of changing reasons, in a country who doesn’t want our help. But the poll doesn’t ask about the needs of the country. Does Iraq need our troops to help secure a peaceful future? Iraq cannot hope to move towards democracy or stability without someone to help enforce stability at least in the short term. The U.S may not want continued military involvement, and Iraqi’s may not want our troops in Iraq, but both the U.S and Iraq will be better off once they both realize that the U.S troops are needed for the time being.
Posted by: Rachel Levine | April 03, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Democracy as a tool of US foreign policy has evidently gone out of fashion. Once the cornerstone of this administration's rhetoric, it has rarely been mentioned in the context of Iraq since the summer of 2006. In fact any of the recent discussions of American involvement in Iraq or the Middle East has revolved around troop levels and funding. This most recent partisan squabbling over Iraq has not even attempted to address the "satellite" issues surrounding Bush policy.
First, I do not believe the Democratic effort is focused on eliminating the war from the 2008 agenda. However, I seriously doubt they are more interested in bringing stability to the region than in positive sound-bites. I argue that it will be impossible for the troops to be redeployed unless the reasons they are in Iraq are discredited. The people of the US should hear how this Administration did not measure up to its promise of democracy and stability in the region, including in Afghanistan, thus, eliminating the Administration’s ability to spin its actions, for example Bush’s veto, in a nationalistic way – the key in their success strategy. On April 3rd, President Bush said “In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the... Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines.” This speech did not address the grievances many Americans have against Bush’s Iraq policy. But neither did the Democratic bill Bush is discussing.
Without a Democratic push to bring about a real dialogue about the issues, US involvement will not decrease but US efforts for democracy may remain at the lows they are today. This future is not one we should accept. But with Vietnam’s example still prevalent in politician’s minds, it is unlikely that Washington will bring back the democracy agenda soon – a shame for the people of Iraq, who clearly need the US reminding them about the positives in democracy.
Posted by: Elizabeth Ryvkin | April 04, 2007 at 09:25 AM
I believe that the Democrats are taking a bold and encouraging step towards a new beginning in Iraq by setting a timetable for troop withdrawal. This timetable will allow the Iraq people to become part of the process of regaining their countries sovereignty and the continued push towards democracy. The timetable allows the Iraqi government to set substantial goals with concrete deadlines in regards to training a new police force, developing new civil servants from all ethnic groups, and stopping the spread of Al Qaeda and other anti-American terrorists. I believe that the concerns about the US pulling out of Iraq too fast are justified, but I also believe the timetable will allow the international community to become more involved in the rehabilitation of Iraq. The US and UK occupation of Iraq has received a clear vote of no confidence by the Iraqi people in the USA Today poll. The opportunity should not be wasted for the US to involve the United Nations. I believe that a strong UN Peace Keeping mission, consisting largely of American troops, is necessary in Iraq. This option will allow the US to safely pull out of Iraq, cut the US war budget at least in-half, and involve the international community.
Posted by: rezaan daniels | April 05, 2007 at 10:41 AM
The Iraq war cannot be thought of as either a Democrat or Republican problem, it is a problem that we as a country got ourselves into and is a problem that is going to take a joint effort to resolve. The Democrats have been fighting the Republicans about ending the war, however, it now appears that the party is split over how to end the war. Furthermore, the Republican party, passing on the Iraqi War torch to the Democrats, may severely tarnish the reputation and legitimacy of the Democratic party. Although people will know that the Republican party had the United States enter the war; if the withdrawl of American forces does not go smoothly the party in power will be held responsible for the war in the eyes of the American people. The republican party is now hoping that they can overcome their tarnished reputation by handing the democratic party the terrible situation in Iraq. They are hoping that the democratic party will mismanage the withdrawal of troops and therefore hope that the people will once again put faith into their party platform.
Regardless of party affiliation, one thing is clear: The withdrawal of American troops cannot be quickly executed. Although the situation in Iraq has not improved, and if anything has gotten worse, it is necessary for the United States to establish some democratic structures and a sense of stability. If the United States just pulls its troops and leaves Iraq in its current state there is nothing stopping another authoritarian leader like Saddam from rising.
Furthermore, our pursuit for democracy in Iraq is becoming increasingly compromised. Our initial goal was to instill democratic ideals and stability within Iraq while training the Iraqi people to handle the government. This failed miserably and because the US rushed the Iraq election and because there has been no security established democracy is no longer seen as the best means of government for many of the Iraqi people. The US must show the Iraqi people that they want democracy. Democracy is not something that can be forced upon people, the people of the country must embrace democratic ideals for the government to function. This departure from the desire for democracy is becoming more apparent with statistics that show that the Iraqi people are becoming more willing to revert to a strong ruler. This shows a complete failure on the part of the United States. We went into Iraq without the support of the UN to topple an oppressive dictator, however, it now appears as though the people of Iraq would prefer that form of government. We have been unable to show or educated the people of Iraq the benefits of democracy so it comes to no surprise that they are not readily embracing the democratic ideology.
Posted by: Dave Phelan | April 06, 2007 at 10:02 AM
As the U.S. embarked on its campaign to "liberate the Iraqi people" from brutal dictatorship, the war took on a humanitarian spirit. The U.S., as the world's liberal hegemon, was taking on the duty to help free the oppressed, according to the administration's rhetoric. Its democracy agenda in Iraq was cloaked in a humanitarian garb. But today, a war-torn Iraq has experienced abject poverty, mass causalities, and detereorating infrastructure, that rivals any humanitarian crisis the world has seen in the past century. So when asked, Why are we still in Iraq?, the correct response should be humanitarian responsibility, not because of moral duty, but because the U.S. cannot afford another stain on its image. Given the heat the U.S. is taking for not reaching out and extending help to the victims of genocide in Darfur, the cut-and-run option for Iraq and the humanitarian crisis that might ensue could cause irreparable damage to the U.S.'s democracy promotion agenda. In an international setting already hostile to U.S. democracy promotion, and with opinion of the U.S. plummeting worldwide, the U.S. can ill-afford another misstep. Unsurprisingly, the world reacts positively when the U.S. responds effectively to humanitarian crises, as it did when the tsunamis struck Southeast Asia, and begins to have faith in the U.S.'s claim to stand up for the dignity of mankind. The U.S. desperately needs to restore this image if its democracy promotion is going to retain that foundation of human liberty and human dignity on which it has been legitimized for so many years, and if the U.S. does leaves Iraq without a sound plan for making things better, the U.S. will have a tremendously difficult time doing that.
Posted by: Timothy Eddy | April 08, 2007 at 01:09 PM
It is a sad thought to consider that America’s most trusted and important political figures might be neglecting to fully consider the Iraq war predicament in an effort to pass the problem off to a newly elected party. This potential blame shift shows the extent in which American politics have not only played in initiating the war, but lends an explanation of why Iraqis are more suspicious of U.S. efforts in their country. If the United States government is handling the immense task of democratizing Iraq in this same way, then it can be rightly assumed that they are not primarily concerned with rebuilding a nation, but more concerned with how to pass the problem off to someone else with as little effort as possible. This type of solution is not what Iraq needs, and the Iraqi people are becoming more aware of that.
It is important not just for future U.S.-Iraq relations, but also for U.S.-Middle East relations that the United States takes a more proactive and dependable role in stabilizing Iraq. For this purpose, it is also important that the U.S. seeks help from other nations in the region to take an active and supporting role in Iraq. With U.S. acceptance in Iraq declining, it is critical for the Iraqi people to realize that other Middle Eastern nations support US efforts there. Integrating other friendly nations, like Egypt in the effort to rebuild Iraq will also take much of the pressure off U.S. troops. Instead of continuous U.S. military presence for training police, security, military, and other requirements for a stable nation, the U.S. should foster a collective effort with and among other Middle Eastern nations. If the U.S. assembles a cooperative effort to rebuild Iraq, then they can simultaneously solve the controversial issues of U.S. presence in Iraq, blame for much of the turmoil in the region, political incentives, and most important of all, cultural differences.
Posted by: Samantha Royes | April 09, 2007 at 12:50 AM
The statistics listed in the latter part of the commentary are dismal at best. I think Iraq has shown the U.S. a lesson it forgot after Vietnam: you cannot attempt to occupy a nation with insufficient military forces. We no longer live in the era of Thermoplyae or the Trojan War where a few can make a successful stand against many. Even though we have superior weaponry, intelligence and military tacticians this means little considering we have never waged the type of war we have recently undertaken. While Iraq started off with incredible optimism, there was always a contingent who thought our occupation/invasion lacked true merit. As the years (although they are few) have dragged on, this voice has become louder.
However, the discontent is associated with parties. The Democrats are now saying 'I told you so'. The Republicans are saying 'it seemed like a good idea at the time'. Meanwhile, the Iraq War is claiming more innocent lives daily. The only thing that has changed between March 2003 and now is a growing realization which crosses party lines- we need to cut our losses.
Sadly, our methodology and party pride are two things seem unable to lay down. It seems that our Congress is less concerned with the War on Terror and more concerned with ending our occupation of Iraq. This is good. Still, the situation still smells of party pride. As articulated above, the Republicans seem willing to drag this out so they don't have Iraq's official failure on their hands. Conversely, the Democrats are suddenly adamant proponents of expedience so the incoming administration- presumably Democratic- will not have to deal with the Iraq situation.
I do not profess any knowledge beyond the soapbox messages delivered media pundits or late night television personalities but I know that an amicable resolution on Iraq will only come out of politicians crossing party lines. We must put our heads together to find a solution which provides political and economic stability to the few secure Iraqi enclaves. For once, this is a solution which can only arise out of genuine bipartisan unity. Neither group can effectively contribute unless they leave their party affiliation and pride at the door. If we cannot do this, I fear our future administration, Democrat or Republican, is doomed to continue tossing around this hot potato hoping someone will magically dispose of it.
Posted by: Mikhail Bell | April 10, 2007 at 01:11 AM
I feel that aside from cynical the comments made by President Bush in his public statements in reference to the war are far irresponsible. He mentions that the war will not end during his administration therefore, willing to stretch the agony of our citizens and our troops so that the blame would not be placed on him as president or his administration. It is just irresponsible how a person who is to be the chief of this state and help protect us is being so cynical in not admitting he failed and made a mistake. Yes, it is true the issue of Iraq has now become a competition for different political views.
What disappoints me the most is the fact that most of our citizens are being fooled especially those who approved the war thinking it was for the spread of democracy and the benefit of Iraq. Well, we were lied to. It is evident that democracy is not the principle aim of the war and even if it was it wouldn’t be successful. Democracy could not be implemented by force it goes against the rights and liberty of the people which are things are part of the broad definition of democracy. The numbers state exactly how I though the people of Iraq were going to feel. The numbers of Iraqis that loss confidence in their future and think not very highly of the United States making it worse if they didn’t before continues to increase. I guess is just a matter of time that will tell who will take the blame or who will be forced to take the blame because the Bush administration might be blamed but if their term is over they could just live on without remorse. Since the one taking the hits will be the democrats and they will have to face the criticism of the people while they are in office.
Posted by: Aidee Acosta | May 05, 2007 at 02:51 PM