From the
lead editorial of the current issue of The Nation-
'World opinion is against it. The American people are against it. The Democratic Party is against it. The Congress of the United States is against it. The Iraq Study Group is against it. The Iraqi people are against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Many Republican lawmakers are against it. The top brass are against it. But George W. Bush is going to do it: send 21,500 more troops into Iraq. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand--possibly to other countries? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? Is its government any longer a constitutional republic? If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored? These are the unwelcome questions that President Bush's decision has forced on the country.'
That one paragraph sums up the point we now find ourselves at.
With President Bush
insisting that he is the sole "decision-maker" on the issue of war (historical note: the 2002 Iraq congressional resolution for force only occurred because Congress
asked the White House to let them vote on it), top Senators still hold onto hope that their
resolutions rebuking his escalation policy will force the White House to accept reality on the war. How naive these Senators are.
The President's position has been clear
for some time... leaving is losing, and an exit strategy is something his successor can deal with, as Bush plans to pass on the war to the next guy. All a non-binding rebuke resolution will do is to lead to more speeches from administration officials and defenders about how war critics '
embolden' the 'enemy' (whoever that is this week).
Now, I can understand why many in Congress are not yet ready to take the gloves off in this political battle; no one goes looking for a fight. But they better get ready to do so real soon. If they're dreaming of some compromise or concession from the White House, they need to wake up.
Now.
I doubt most Americans want to wait another year or two while members of Congress search for the most polite, non-confrontational way to force the White House to start wrapping this up. Escaping this debacle will be hard... there may not be one right way to withdraw from Iraq, but we must find the least of the bad options in that regard. Regardless, that debate must occur on
Congress' terms, not the White House's, as has been-- and still is-- the case.
And on top of all this, Congress (and, more importantly, we as a country) must now deal with the very real possibility of the United States confronting Iran military in some form in the near future. We've known since 2002 that the neocons
had their eye on Iran as the country after Iraq in need of their particular brand of 'liberating' (and we've had even more urgent rumblings about this
starting last Spring). The administration and their cultish defenders have thrown around many rationales for such action (for the sake of the neocons, please ignore that the calls for war against Iran predate these rationales)-- the rantings of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the nuclear program. And now, the administration has settled onto one overarching rallying cry... Concerns over
Iranian interference inside and around Iraq.
(This also provides them with a convenient scapegoat for their debacle in Iraq.)
I do not mean to defend the leaders of Iran, but it must be noted that the evidence for the administration's grand claims about that
seem somewhat lacking. Not surprisingly, the administration
is in no hurry to provide public evidence of its charges in this regard.
And to whatever extent the concerns about Iran are legitimate, what efforts have been undertaken to resolve this diplomatically? Has any administration official considered a direct visit to Tehran to hash this out in person, rather than all this proxy nonsense? Has any effort been made to engage regional allies in similar diplomacy? To the best of our knowledge, the answers are no, no, and no. We've been here before, haven't we?
Yet it is with this narrative that the Bush crew appears to want to
provoke a confrontation.
No one can honestly predict what will happen, but I think it's clear the direction that the Bush administration has us headed in. Deeper in, double down. So I really, really hope that congressional leaders aren't
deluded enough to think they can avoid this political fight.
Let's stop marking time and start getting down to business.
[Related reading--
-Defense Tech:
Breaking: Double the Troops in "Surge"-Glenn Greenwald:
Republicans and Congress' war powers -- then and now-Vanity Fair:
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq-
The same neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war have been using the same tactics—alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on W.M.D.—to push for the bombing of Iran. As President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran, is he planning to double his Middle East bet?]
