Senate Approves Bill as Well
Filed under: Democratic party, George W. Bush, House of Representatives, Iraq, Republican Party, Senate, War — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on April 27, 2007 @ 11:48 am CEST
The US Senate approved the Iraq war spending bill, calling for US troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as July 1.
I am still waiting for the Democrats how they think a mass slaughter can be prevented once the US withdraws.
It seems that Democrats and Republicans are working towards a compromise.
Senior Democratic and Republican lawmakers began to weigh alternatives to the legislation’s most contentious provision, the binding withdrawal terms. The goal is to be more flexible but still restrain how Bush conducts the war…
The provision most likely to survive the next round is a set of political and diplomatic benchmarks for the Iraqi government. The language all but certain to be dropped, or at least diluted, would require troop withdrawals to begin as early as July 1 and no later than Oct. 1. Another sticking point is the bill’s $21 billion worth of domestic spending, which Bush and some Republicans have protested as pork.
A significant number of Republicans support the benchmarks — possibly enough to override a second veto, should Bush resort to that. The measures would prod Baghdad officials to build up military forces, crack down on militias and sectarian violence, protect minority rights and manage Iraq’s extensive petroleum reserves.
Meanwhile, General Patraeus said that “espite an increase in troop levels, the overall violence in Iraq has not declined, and he warned that U.S. casualties may increase in the coming months.”
He added: “This effort may get harder before it gets easier. It is an endeavor, again, that is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time.”
There is one major problem: the ‘enormous commitment’ isn’t there. Democrats, and quite some Republicans, and the majority of the American people so it seems, do not want to be in Iraq for much longer.
I wish that the debate would be about what’s best for Iraq. They are talking about “getting our troops out,” okay, fair enough, I understand that, but… what about all those Iraqis who do not want the violence to continue but cannot stop it all by themselves? What about those Iraqis who did not ask the US to invade, but the US - leading a coalition of the willing - did so anyway? What about them? Are these people suggesting abandoning them?
“Our troops can’t get in the middle of a civil war,” is one of the things one hears quite often. Perhaps it is time to remember those who say this that without US intervention there would be no civil war. Whether you opposed the war or supported it… one has to look at the situation today.
I am repeating myself, I am aware of that, but the reason for that is that I find it increasingly worrisome and frustrating. They are talking about the US troops, about the US military, about the US deficit… but they are not talking about the Iraqi people anymore. My point? The tone of the debate is wrong. They are leaving one important aspect out of the entire debate.
Meanwhile, E.J. Dionne wrote an interesting column about the war in Iraq for today’s Washington Post. Dionne writes:
This is not really an argument over the “surge” of troops into Iraq. It is a fight over whether we want to make an open-ended commitment to keeping combat forces in Iraq for many years or whether we anticipate pulling most of them out within a year or two.
Even if the surge succeeds in a narrow sense — by reducing the number of Iraqis killed in sectarian violence in Baghdad — there is no guarantee that the overall situation in Iraq will be any better, no guarantee that Iraqi leaders will take the political steps necessary to end the internecine killing and create a stable government, no guarantee that we will make progress against al-Qaeda.
Very, very true and ‘we’ should way the risks against the potential for success very carefully, ‘we’ should include all major factors, but one of those factors that has to be included is… yes, the Iraqi people. Dionne too, does not mention them in his column.
Also read this article at NRO by Joseph Morrison Skelly.
1 Nobody
April 27, 2007 @ 1:21 pm CESTI will concede to the antiwar one very important point and many of us have been begging of Bush to concede this point as well.
No amount of forces in Iraq are going to stop the sectarian violence. Unless we turn the country into another Saddam Hussein dictatorship and gas 100,000 Shia or Sunni to show that one bomb equals 100,000 dead.
This is why we propose that the Iraqis must work this out themselves with the US and its Coalition forces acting as buffers to prevent the spilling of the war into the rest of the region and preventing the war from being joined by her neighbors.
The only real danger to this is what will end up being the final result. Will we have another Terrorist sponsoring nation at the end. Will we have another nation that is bent on the destruction of all things non muslim. Are we in for 40 years of civil war as every interest in the world finds its way into the Iraqi country and tries to exert influence.
There are many, many things that can be done to prevent that, that cannot be discussed here. Suffice it to say that a presence in Iraq is necessary to insure that certain things do not transpire and that Iraq moves along moderate lines and not Jihadi lines.
Moderation should be the only goal of the United States.
Secondly the USA should begin today to seriously work on alternative means of fueling her appetitite. Our dependence on Middle east should be gone in 10 years. The Middle east needs to be turned into irrelevancy. They have lorded it over the entire world for 55 years now and its time this stops.
With Just the United States alone and a few other countries removing themselves from the Welfare Rolls of the Saudis and the worlds oil suppliers the power of the Cartel would diminish greatly.
These two things should be at the forefront of our spending. We should be spending 115 billion a year in Iraq and 115 billion a year working on removing our dependence on Foreign oil.
2 Alan
April 27, 2007 @ 1:41 pm CESTI will make a prediction:
“Benchmarks” will replace “deadlines” and the resulting compromise will be signed by Bush.
And a second one:
If you look at public opinion polls of Iraqis, over time they will show a steadily increasing number of Iraqis want the US out of their country.
3 C Stanley
April 27, 2007 @ 2:37 pm CESTIMO the only constitutional and ethical way for Congress to proceed is to simultaneously pass the funding bill without constraints (for the short term, the supplemental) while also passing a nonbinding resolution that puts Bush on notice of the conditions for further funding (that benchmarks are met by the Iraqis).
This seems so logical to me that I can’t help but think that the fact that the Dems haven’t already taken this approach indicates that they are trying to play to the extreme antiwar crowd (to whom it’s more important to make a statement about how they don’t believe the surge will work, that we have to bring the troops home NOW, etc, then it is to find a correct path to salvage anything in a way that correctly uses Congress’s power of the purse).
4 kritter
April 27, 2007 @ 3:27 pm CESTTNobody-here is no danger that this will be the final result- but its like any other negotiation-each side starts out in an extreme position, then ends up somewhere in the middle. The Democrats know it won’t survive the president’s veto, but it shows that they had the strength to get it to pass in the first place, which gives them some bargaining power to get a commitment to the benchmarks.
BTW, that may be a tough sticking point, because even though the surge is partially helping reduce the violence, the Iraqis are not taking advantage of it to reach any of the political benchmarks that they must, to get this to work. Gates said having this debate is actually helping to keep the pressure on them- where it rightfully belongs. An open-ended commitment by us will engender no political progress, and kudos to Gates for being honest enough to admit that- even though Bush and Cheney are trying to use the debate for their own partisan ends.
5 Interested
April 27, 2007 @ 6:32 pm CEST….as is everyone else remotely connected to the *debate*
6 kritter
April 28, 2007 @ 3:33 am CESTWell, it would be nice to have leadership in the WH that could look beyond petty politics and put the country first, Interested. That’s what a true leader does. But these two continue to put the RNC before the USA.
7 Interested
April 28, 2007 @ 4:33 am CESTOk, i’m seeing a trend here.
I’m failing to see the thought process behind your post here as well Kim.
8 C Stanley
April 28, 2007 @ 2:55 pm CESTWhat I don’t understand is why the WH leadership is judged to be lacking (I agree with that part) but Congress isn’t required to take a leadership role. Both branches should be leading rather than pandering to their bases, particularly with an issue as important as the war. So yeah, Kim, it would be nice if Bush and Cheney wouldn’t play political games, but also nice if the Congress that was elected to stop that nonsense would do so (because it’s pretty clear that they were elected not to stop the war on a dime, but to stop the politicization and mismanagement of it).
9 kritter
April 28, 2007 @ 9:14 pm CESTCS-Well, what I see is that both are playing hardball politics on the war. Bush doesn’t want to budge, so Congress passed the bill that it did to get him to the table. Most Americans aren’t opposed to a timetable- but that will probably not go in the final bill. What will make it out hopefully are the benchmarks. What they are trying to avoid is an open-ended commitment that is gradually escalating and dragging out for years without any political progress by the Iraqis. I agree with them on that.
Interested- Obviously we are not connecting- which is ok. We just don’t think alike.