In recent weeks America has heard strong words coming from members of Congress. In addition to the calls for a non-binding resolution against President Bush's new policy on Iraq, some of our elected officials have raised the idea of cutting funding for the war. Certainly this has been done before, but this is the first time that the option has really been on the table.
Many proponents of the idea are using it as leverage in a last ditch attempt to bring the Bush administration back to the negotiating table. The option of cutting funding is often refered to as the last resort, to be saved for a later day. But the simple fact of the matters is that, for the Democrats, it is now or never. They just don't see it yet.
Many voters went for the Democrats in 2006 because of the war in Iraq. The Democrats are already in danger of losing that support. While not every American is not going to base their vote solely on the status of the war in 2008, enough will to swing a close election. This potentially loyal base is not going to be satisfied with a "non-binding resolution" which is the equivalent of saying "Hey Bush, we think you are wrong."
The perceived danger for Democrats lies in the Republican's ability to portray their candidates as troop hating, bleeding hearted liberals. If they cut funding for the war, the Republicans will have a field day bemoaning the abandonment of the troops. Reality: the troops are not going to be left in Iraq to die in the sand. Any effort to cut funding will be accompanied by a plan to safely bring the troops home. And once the war is over America will have a much greater sack of budget dollars left over to give our brave soldiers the benefits they deserve. Instinct tells me the majority of our soldiers will be happy to be back with their families.
The election is a long ways off. The Democrats will have over a year and a half to show that ending the war was the right thing to do. What will the Republicans have besides a lingering sense of failure? The last election showed that the American people are not buying the tough on defense act anymore. But if the Democrats wait too long the election season will be in full swing - and we all know that controversial decisions do not get made during elections.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
I really think this could be amusing as the dems dig themselves into a hole while we run up to the election.
Sad to say, the Republicans are starting to fold which makes them just as guilty. Bush might well be the last man standing.
Secondly, and this should be obvious, it is already a massacre. Everyday.
The Bush administration has had numerous chances to turn this thing around. They chose instead to spend a substantial amount of America's budget paying private corporations to travel to Iraq for work they were ill prepared to do.
Everyone knows that the President's new strategy is going to fail. It is less of a strategy than a delaying tactic, likely designed to shift the blame upon the Democrats - who will eventually have to do something besides mutter about Iraq under their breath. The worst kind of spin endangers American and Iraqi lives for no other reason than political gain in the future. Rest assured that the legacy of Iraq being constructed by Republicans is that "The liberals caved and made us fail." The reality is that the liberals knew this was a mistake from the start.
Finally, bringing American troops home does not have to mean abandoning Iraq. America can continue to help fund the reconstruction of Iraq. Our withdrawal will also open the doors for aid from other nations who have sat on the sidelines watching our folly. Stability in Iraq is in the interests of every nation. In terms of cost, bringing the troops home and helping Iraqis (not Halliburton) rebuild their own country makes more sense as well.
David, the Iraqi government will not be able to stand by itself if American forces leave. The Iraqis are not prepared for this. Since stability is not in every nations interests (Iran, Syria) there will still be choas. While I do think the Iraqis should take the lead, the US should not leave Iraq until the country is stable.
From the start, the majority of Iraqis have opposed the U.S. presence in Iraq. One has to remember that our role as liberator comes after two decades of actions which greatly harmed the population of Iraq. First the United States supported the Hussien regime. Later, we cut our ties with him but implaced sanctions on Iraq which impoverished much of its population. Iraq was once one of the most developed nations in the Middle East, now it is in shambles.
So if anyone could tell me how exactly keeping our troops in Iraq is helping please let me know.
I do think that the Iraqis should take the lead, but I dont see Iraq becomming a successful state if the US leaves. US troops are the only thing that is preventing the entire country from sinking into total choas. Right now the vast majority of the violence in the country is in Baghdad, but if we leave, it could spread to other regions of the country.
We have a sick catch 22 situation in Iraq; if we stay, violence continues. If we leave, violence continues. We have to find a solution that allows our troops to get out and that ensures stability in Iraq. If we cannot guarentee any of these conditions, then there will be serious consequences in the future.
"We have a sick catch 22 situation in Iraq; if we stay, violence continues. If we leave, violence continues. We have to find a solution that allows our troops to get out and that ensures stability in Iraq. If we cannot guarantee any of these conditions, then there will be serious consequences in the future. "
You said it yourself it doesn't make any difference whether we stay or go. The only way to insure stability in Iraq is to totally take over the country under martial law for the next 30 years while we school new generations in the values of life and the principles of a free people. We can't afford that and no one over there asked us to. They don't want us and we are now making things worse!
Lets get our people home and start taking care of some things here while we rebuild for a future action anywhere if it becomes necessary. Right now Bush and his administration is trying to cut the hell out of Medicare, Medicaid and any other social services as well as domestic needs like highways in order to give big tax breaks and fund a war no one except the oil companies want!
Appreciate your Comments!
Your comments are more direct and telling than your article!
One thing on which I tend to disagree is funding reconstruction. If we get out and cancel the 40 year exclusive contract for Halburton and such - that is, acknowledge to the Iraq citizens that it is really their oil, they can produce the funds to rebuild by selling that of which they have the most!
Thanks!
Ty Phoon, I understand where you are coming from. But again, where as you see the potential for Iraq to sink into chaos, I see an Iraq already in chaos. We haven't stopped the slide into instability so far, why would we suddenly be able to do so now?
In terms of the long term, the best thing we can do is pull back and attempt to help Iraq rebuild. Indeed, funding rebuilding may do more than building a new Iraqi army. Indeed, the army we have created thus far is unlikely to be very effective whether we are there to help them or not, namely because its members are largely more loyal to their sect or ethnic group than to the central government.
Every dollar being spent to maintain our large troop presence could be spent instead creating new jobs for the Iraqi people and fixing the nation's infrastructure. It was the combination of joblessness and lawlessness that fueled the insurgency from the start. Providing Iraqis with hope for the future is key to peace.
Finally, in terms of our relations with the Middle East, and the Muslim world, it is vital to understand that our presence in Iraq is not seen as an altruistic one. Time and time again, the experts have said that invading Iraq has increased instability in the already volatile region, increased global animosity against America, and increased the likelyhood of recruiting power of Islamic terrorist organizations. To the rest of the world this has been a war about domination, full of civilian casualties and major human rights violations. It is viewed as a war where America pushed aside the rules of a global order primarily out of arrogance. It matters little whether any of these things beliefs are true - what matters is we begin to heal our image. Remaining in Iraq is only fueling the flames.
The violence between the Sunni's and the Shiita's was not caused by the US presence there. If we leave the terrorists and the insurgents may put down their arms, but the violence between the Sunnis and the Shiita's will not end. Unlike the insurgency, the sectarian violence has the potential to destroy the country. Leaving Iraq will not solve that problem, and funding the reconstruction from the sidelines will not solve it either.
Like I said, Iraq is a catch 22 situation. If we stay, violence continues; if we leave, violence continues. We have to chose the lesser of two evils. Staying ensures that Iraq will not completly collapse. Leaving ensures the total destruction of the Iraqi government, the collapse of the country, and the possible spill-over. David, I understand where you are comming from, but I find your opinion very unconvincing.