WASHINGTON — It came as no surprise that Democrats wasted no
time in drawing on their electoral victory to press for immediate
withdrawal from Iraq. Somewhat surprising, however, is the apparent
logic in their argument.
“The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the
open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to
solve their own problems,” Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) was quoted in the New York Times as
saying.
Over the last several years, many Democrats have parroted a
statement that Colin Powell allegedly made in the lead-up to the
war: “If you break it, you own it.”
And break it we did. America “broke” Iraq when it ousted Saddam
Hussein’s regime and disbanded the Baathist military. Now, in
accordance with the second precept of this axiom, coalition forces
are fixing what they “own,” though not as rapidly as most people
would like.
Last month General George Casey predicted that it would take
12-18 months for the Iraqis finally to be able to provide their own
security.
But Democrats insist that this happen sooner. Despite what
generals say about conditions on the ground, incoming Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) demands that “redeployment”
begin “within the next few months.” If this were to happen,
Congress would in effect be enacting Sen. John Kerry’s (D., Mass.)
failed amendment this summer that called for withdrawal by
July 1, 2007 — an amendment that was rejected 13-86. But backed by
new congressional majorities, Democratic politicians now feel
entitled to run, if not win, wars.
Kerry’s amendment contended that setting a timetable will
“further a political solution in Iraq” and “encourage the people of
Iraq to provide their own security.” Although the amendment failed,
the thinking behind it persists.
The thinking is that a specific deadline will somehow “motivate”
Iraqi leaders to finish the nasty and onerous task of rebuilding
their security forces and infrastructure, at which point they will
instinctively proceed with do-it-yourself democratic reforms. Their
instructions: Be creative.
But if a timetable is such a good idea for Iraq, why isn’t it
also for Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is not yet a Jeffersonian pantisocracy, either. The
bright spot in its economy is its opium trade. Taliban remnants
continue to resist democracy and modernity, as well as any law that
permits women (and men) to wear miniskirts. Even with the situation
there far from perfect, virtually no one is calling for an end date
to U.S. occupation. Many Democrats actually advocate, at least
rhetorically, devoting more funding and more
troops there (even though Karzai’s government has had more time to
get its act together than Maliki’s has). Both parties seem to agree
that threatening to abandon the country by a certain date will not
help Afghanis help themselves.
But when it comes to Iraq, Democrats want to turn the
timetables. One year ago, Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) introduced a
bill dubbed ” End the War in Iraq Act of 2005,” which would prohibit
funding for U.S. troops deployed in Iraq. As of now, the bill has
18 cosponsors, but that number may increase once post-election
aspirations of bipartisan moderation fade and Democrats become
emboldened to “do something” about an issue their base feels so
passionate about.
EVEN IF THE ACT DOES NOT PASS, the question — to fund or not to
fund — is sure to be raised under a Democratic Congress. “First
order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy,” Levin
said less than a week after the elections. “The
people spoke dramatically, overwhelmingly, resoundingly to change
the course in Iraq, in a message that was heard around the
world.”
That message was unfortunate. Already public support for the war
is abysmal. Any legislative efforts to deny crucial military
assistance to a country transitioning from totalitarianism to daily
car bombings will only compound the difficulties facing Iraqi
leaders, as they try to determine whether to carry on with
constitutional governance, a slow and arduous process, or to cut
deals with militia leaders in case the Americans are no longer
around to help fix what they “broke.” To make an obvious point, any
act that includes the words “End the War” in its title does not
send a reassuring message to those fighting to end the war by
winning it. It sends one signal: an exit sign.
This doesn’t seem to worry many Democrats. “It’s their problem
more than it’s our problem,” explains Sen. Reid.
In 1985, as Congress was debating whether to continue funding
the democratic resistance in Nicaragua, critics of the Reagan
administration argued repeatedly that whatever happened in
Nicaragua “is not America’s problem.” Rep. John Murtha (D., Penn.),
however, protested this line of thinking. On June 12, 1985, he
warned lawmakers that refusing aid to our allies, the Contras, was
dangerous because doing so would send a mixed signal of U.S.
intentions. Speaking on the House floor, he said: “There is nothing
worse than sitting in a foxhole waiting for somebody to bring you
aid…and in the meantime you have a Congress
12,000 miles away that is trying to decide your fate. You cannot
operate a war that way. You cannot operate any kind of an operation
like that.”
Obviously Murtha’s thinking has changed. Now he wants Congress
to decide an entire country’s fate. Iraq is not Nicaragua,
certainly; but the signals Washington sends are no less important
today than they were twenty years ago. If anything, they are more
so.
After the defeat of Nazi Germany, General Lucius D. Clay, the
U.S. Military Governor in occupied Germany, proposed a timetable of his own: “We should
remain fifty years,” he said, adding that if the Europeans believed
we would, “we probably would finish the job in five.” There’s an
idea for today’s Democrats. How about penciling 2056 into their
calendars?
