Mario Loyola thinks they might. I don't see it happening any time soon, though they seem to be trying to build political momentum toward it. Hence the date-certain for withdrawal of U.S. forces in the war supplementals. Still, the President has said he will veto any funding bill with a time line for withdrawal, and this puts the Dems in a corner. Either they cut funding immediately, which they don't feel they are in a position to do safely, or they fund the war without a time line for withdrawal, in which case they will have acquiesced to a war they supposedly oppose, fatally undermining their position.
Honestly, I think the Dems moved too quickly on this issue. Iraq played a critical role in their victory in 2006 because things were obviously going so badly there. The American people were clearly dissatisfied with the sate of affairs and wanted something different, but they weren't ready to throw in the towel. Realizing this, the President made some personnel adjustments, replacing Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates and putting General David Petraeus in charge in Iraq. He also made tactical and strategic adjustments, initiating the troop "surge" and taking limited actions against Iranian agents working to undermine the Iraqi government.
At this point, it would probably have been best for the Democrats to say something to the effect of "The American people voted for a change of course in Iraq, and this appears to be just that. The President appears to have heard the wishes of the American people and is responding positively to them. We will give his new plan a chance to work, but if, in six months time, this new strategy proves as ineffectual as the last one, we're pulling the plug." This would have meant the issue would be coming up again this fall as appropriations season rolled around again, making it the natural time to consider cutting off funds. It also would have left Democrats with an out should the surge appear to be working. Instead, whether out of sheer shortsightedness or the perceived need to appease their anti-war base, the Democrats have forced themselves into a corner which will have disastrous effects, either for them or for American foreign policy.
Honestly, I think the Dems moved too quickly on this issue. Iraq played a critical role in their victory in 2006 because things were obviously going so badly there. The American people were clearly dissatisfied with the sate of affairs and wanted something different, but they weren't ready to throw in the towel. Realizing this, the President made some personnel adjustments, replacing Donald Rumsfeld with Robert Gates and putting General David Petraeus in charge in Iraq. He also made tactical and strategic adjustments, initiating the troop "surge" and taking limited actions against Iranian agents working to undermine the Iraqi government.
At this point, it would probably have been best for the Democrats to say something to the effect of "The American people voted for a change of course in Iraq, and this appears to be just that. The President appears to have heard the wishes of the American people and is responding positively to them. We will give his new plan a chance to work, but if, in six months time, this new strategy proves as ineffectual as the last one, we're pulling the plug." This would have meant the issue would be coming up again this fall as appropriations season rolled around again, making it the natural time to consider cutting off funds. It also would have left Democrats with an out should the surge appear to be working. Instead, whether out of sheer shortsightedness or the perceived need to appease their anti-war base, the Democrats have forced themselves into a corner which will have disastrous effects, either for them or for American foreign policy.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment