George Will: What Can Congress Do About Iraq?
The answer: very little.
More than any congressional elections in history, last week’s turned on a single burning national issue. Control of Congress has changed because of deep discontent about Iraq. But Congress can, realistically, have little control over what we make of the mess we have made.
Democrats could have demanded the departure of Donald Rumsfeld, but they have been pre-empted. They could cut off funding for the war, but that weapon is too blunt to be used – [not according to Charles Rangel - Mark]. Besides, both parties know that, for all the arguments about whether there should be a deadline for disengagement from Iraq, the Constitution, in effect, sets a deadline for setting a deadline.
There will be—the Constitution is persnickety about this—a presidential election in 24 months. Republicans do not want to run in 2008 with 150,000 U.S. forces still caught in the crossfire of Iraq’s sectarian strife. Democrats know that if Iraq is still aboil and the U.S. presence essentially unchanged, their 2008 presidential candidate will have to offer what their 2006 congressional candidates were not required to offer—an actual plan for dealing with the problem. And each party’s nominee would dread the possibility that his or her presidency would be instantly entangled in an inherited war.
There is another, if perhaps slight, reason to hope for, if not congeniality, at least some convergence of interests between the executive and legislative branches. It is that the election that has elevated Nancy Pelosi to the speakership has produced a more conservative House.
Will’s analysis takes it as a given that a deadline for withdrawals will soon be issued. Certainly, the Democrats are making such noises, but the White House is balking:
Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.
The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.
“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “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.”
The White House signaled a willingness to listen to the Democrats’ proposals, with Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of staff, saying in two television appearances that the president was open to “fresh ideas” and a “fresh look.” But Mr. Bolten said he could not envision the White House signing on to a plan setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.
“You know, we’re willing to talk about anything,” he said on “This Week.” “I don’t think we’re going to be receptive to the notion there’s a fixed timetable at which we automatically pull out, because that could be a true disaster for the Iraqi people. But what we’ve always been prepared to do, and remain prepared to do, is indeed what Senators Levin and Biden were talking about, is put pressure on the Iraqi government to take over themselves.”
A lot seems to reading on what the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group returns with. Bush met with the panel today:
Baker has indicated the recommendations, to be issued before the end of the year, will fall somewhere between the troop withdrawal strategy that Republicans like to say Democrats favor and the stay the course policy until recently used by Bush and widely ridiculed by Democrats.
On Sunday, Bush’s advisers adopted a new tone, days after a dissatisfied public handed the White House a divided government.
”We clearly need a fresh approach,” said Bolten, making the rounds of morning talk shows.
Levin and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, predicted that many Republicans would support a resolution on a phased troop reduction now that the election is over.
Yet the Senate’s top Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, did not seem to go as far. He said he thought the withdrawal of U.S. troops should begin within a few months, but when asked if he would insist on a specific date, he said, ”Absolutely not.”
The administration will not support a timetable for drawing down troops, Bolten said.
The real action will happen after the release of the report, the confirmation of Gates, and the end of the holidays. The first few months of 2007 may be the tipping point, but which way our Iraq policy tips is still anyone’s guess…
I think one clever political thing that many Democrats, including Carl Levin in the above-quoted piece, are doing is putting the onus on the Iraqis. As I mentioned in the thread below this one, I think the Democrats won this time mainly on the strength of the independent vote, those who go with their guts and are not inclined to buy into the spittle-flecked stridency that you often hear from the contemporary left.
If you spend all your time reverting to the norm and blaming America first – in other words, letting Michael Moore become the face of your party – you’re going to lose those voters. But when you say things like, “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,” well, suddenly you’re talking in a language of Jacksonian America likes. To put it bluntly, it’s the difference between believing the world is too good for us or whether we’re too good for the world. To the extent that the Democrats have managed to put a muzzle on the former (and the loss of Lamont helps this) and promoted the latter view, that has helped them at the polls.
Now whether they’ll be able to keep that muzzle on for long is a different question. And it’s also debatable whether the “Screw ‘em, they’re all a bunch of savages” attitude it encourages is really one that liberals want to encourage. But it might be the kind of thing that gets Hillary Clinton elected.
Curiously, on another board I’m on, where most of the posters are liberal, someone asked what they wanted from the new Congress. Several said they wanted a workable plan to get us out of Iraq, provided that it wouldn’t result in massive bloodshed over there. I don’t think it dawned on any of them that that’s pretty much the same position of the Bush administration. The question seems to be whether in the end, you’re more interested in getting out fast than in helping Iraqis. Given the muddle of Democrats, I’m not sure many have figured this out.