Thursday, May 3, 2007
Now that the grandstanding round is over in Washington, maybe Congress can get to the business of doing something meaningful about Iraq.
On Tuesday, President Bush vetoed a $124 billion spending bill that would have funded operations in Iraq, but also would have set a timeline for withdrawal of American forces.
It was an anticlimactic moment. For weeks, the Democratic Congress has been working on legislation to force the president to change course on Iraq. For just as long, Bush has vowed to veto such a bill and continue to add troops as part of his "surge."
As written in this space Sunday, it is now time for even those who have supported the Iraq mission -- as these pages have in the past -- to recognize that the chances for military success there are unacceptably low. Not only is the situation in Iraq dire, but the president has squandered support for the war at home. He'll never get the long-term commitment needed to pursue even the thinnest hope for military success in Iraq.
Democrats believe they were handed control of Congress with a mandate to end the war, and perhaps that's true. It's understandable they would first pursue a hard time line for ending the war, even if it had no chance of becoming law.
Having done that, they can now get down to the business of crafting a plan to end our military operation in Iraq that will work politically and militarily.
To that end, Sen. Olympia Snowe has a good idea. She is sponsoring a bill that would set benchmarks for success in Iraq. If they're not met, military commanders would have to come up with plans for limiting our commitment there.
In its current form, Snowe's legislation probably doesn't do enough to force the president to change course to satisfy most Democrats. But bridging these competing concerns is where good leaders can make a difference.
The way out of this quagmire is to get Democrats and Republicans in Congress to agree in principle on winding down operations in Iraq and then to create a workable process for getting there.
A hard timeline may carry too many political and military liabilities, but somewhere between an open-ended commitment and immediate withdrawal is a plan that will bring this nightmare to an end.
In truth, the only benchmark that has the American public's attention right now is the casualty count among American troops. But if setting measurable goals for progress can lead to extricating ourselves from this war, then it's a reasonable course to pursue.
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
outrageous behavior...? Where have you been living for the past six years, Trevor? In a cave...?
Scroll down to Jonathan Albrecht's earlier comment about Karl Rove saying the war will be good for Republican's election efforts... Take the partisan blinders off for two seconds...report abuse
Shawn Daily of Madawaska, ME,
If not wanting to pay something (money and lives) for nothing (of demonstrable value gained by our involvement in Iraq) means that one is "Bushphobic", "bush hating" or "on the side of the terrorists", then sign me up to be called all 3. I hate paying something for nothing. That's why I'll be voting Democrat for Pres next time.
Don't construe that as support for Baldy and Maine's dems, though. I still recognize the glaring truth that Baldy and his cronies are scumbags.
report abuse
And women.
report abuse
Show all 27 comments
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.