http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/12/ohanlon-on-iraq-dems.html
Please see the above blog post based on an article in USA Today by Michael O’Hanlon (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/12/a-new-course-on.html).
I would like to respond.
I’d like to see what O’Hanlon’s proposing work. But I doubt it will.
What he’s asking the Democrats to do is to put partisan interests aside and act as “honest broker” appraisers of progress in Iraq.
He isn’t just asking the Democrats to put aside partisan interests. He is also directly confronting the President on the matter as well. Mr. O’Hanlon states:
The surge was never designed as just a military operation; it was intended to create political space for Iraqis to forge reconciliation with each other across sectarian lines.
Since that is for the most part not yet happening, it is perfectly reasonable for the Democrats to demand more as a condition for continued funding.
President Bush is unwilling to compromise and threatens a veto anytime Congress tries to follow this strategy and place conditions on continued funding: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJGuiY.o4jz8)
One of the biggest battles ahead is over war funding. Democrats say they won't pass Bush's request for $190 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have instead offered a $50 billion down payment, which contains language calling for a troop withdrawal. Bush threatens to veto any legislation containing goals or timetables for pulling troops out of Iraq.
``It's unconscionable to deny funds to our troops in harm's way because some in Congress want to force a self-defeating policy, especially when we're seeing the benefits of success,'' Bush said, referring to a decrease in violence in parts of Iraq.
John continues:
I doubt the Dems can do that because they’re so heavily burdened by their MoveOn.org wing which strikes me as unreasonable on a number of issues, particularly the Iraq War.
What O’Hanlon’s calling for depends on people being very reasonable: data driven rather than ideology driven.
And they’ll need to be that way over the course of many years.
Both sides should follow these rules. If we follow the data we will see the following:
1) Bush’s original strategy was a failure (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601505.html).
2) Bush’s current strategy was to give the Iraqi democracy breathing room. This strategy is failing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6985436.stm)
3) The government we put in place is corrupt (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/middleeast/05contractor.html)
Mr. Bush is famous for having said “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again” (http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/youtube/bushfoolme.htm)
Mr. Bush was wrong the first time (point 1 above), and fooled Congress into giving him authorization for the war. Mr. Bush was also wrong the second time (point 2 above). Congress, you can’t get fooled again!
The Congress should be reasonable, I agree with both John and Mr. O’Hanlon on this point. The President should be reasonable as well and realize that because political reconciliation is not occurring we need to step aside or find a new less-corrupt government for Iraq. Mr. O’Hanlon’s suggestions sound like a good start, but they are predicated on the assumption that the Iragi government can implement his “considerable to-do list.” Can we really rely on a corrupt government (point 3 above) to implement such a considerable list? If we cannot trust them to protect the Judge we put in charge of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity and his staff (discussed in the link for point 3 above) then we cannot trust them with Mr. O’Hanlon’s more expansive list.
No comments:
Post a Comment