July 18, 2007
Iraq: Eyeing The Exits
Republicans nearly unanimously voted against cloture on a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq this morning -- a sign that even as an increasing number of GOP lawmakers are speaking out against the president's handling of the war, they are not yet comfortable with the idea of imposing a firm deadline for withdrawal.
Critics of such plans argue that, as bad as the situation is now, it would only get worse if U.S. forces were to leave. And many Republicans angry at Democratic withdrawal plans have pointed out that even as they call for pulling U.S. troops out, Democratic leaders have yet to unveil a detailed plan for how to deal with the fallout of such a move.
This morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that recent interviews with "more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans" lend credence to those claims. "Lawmakers who have led the drive to bring troops home from Iraq have not devised a strategy to deal with the widespread killings that could follow a pullout," the Times reported, even though "many of them acknowledge that Iraq may plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago."
In that article, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quoted as saying he wouldn't even begin to discuss what would happen if the violence were to increase after a U.S. pullout. "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it," he told reporters.
On the other hand, supporters of President Bush's war policies, including the president himself, are more than willing to get into it. "To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States," Bush said last week. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida. It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale.... It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."
Hypothetical? Yes. But the contention that withdrawal would endanger national security does bolster the president's argument for staying the course until military commanders say it's time to go. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey's (D) prediction -- "I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous" -- is less helpful to his party's argument for withdrawal.
Or is it? A Newsweek poll released earlier this week showed most Americans expect the situation in Iraq to worsen if U.S. troops leave. But at the same time, majorities believe the president's troop surge is having little to no impact anyway, and regardless of the consequences, 55 percent said a U.S. withdrawal should not be made contingent upon Iraq's readiness to deal with the fallout.
At this point, no one is sure what exactly Iraq would look like if U.S. troops were to withdraw within the next year, and if the drumbeat for withdrawal continues or grows louder after Gen. David Petraeus submits his anticipated progress report next September, the larger question of what happens next could well take center stage. Yesterday the Washington Post reported that the military is conducting "war games" to better predict the outcome. The picture, it seems, is not pretty.
For now, not all lawmakers calling for withdrawal are ignoring the aftermath. Presidential candidate and Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden is perhaps the most visible and vocal Democrat with a specific plan for dealing with a post-war Iraq. The Iraq Study Group's recommendations for a diplomatic approach are also beginning to make a comeback. And at least one GOP dissenter -- Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel -- made sure that the Levin-Reed withdrawal amendment included provisions for "a political accommodation to break the cycle of violence in Iraq."
(Defense Department photo by Staff Sgt. D. Myles Cullen, U.S. Air Force)
Posted at 4:36 PM
Posted to:
Bush Administration, Campaigns, Congress, Democrats, Iraq, Joseph Biden, Middle East, President Bush, Senate, WH 2008
Share via
