It's been all about Iraq, this week anyway.
We started the week with the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division describing their experiences in Sadr City and their resulting negative viewpoints regarding the future of our efforts in Iraq, went on the President Bush going to the Veterans of Foreign Wars to make what seems to be his annual case for the military operation, continued with Democratic senators Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton calling for the removal of Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki, added very odd plans by presidential hopeful Barack Obama and GOP Sen. John Warner to draw down our troop levels, and finished the week with a downer of a National Intelligence Estimate on the political prospects of the Iraqi government.
Some of these developments have already been discussed here.
But let's take on some of the more recent ones. Concerning the removal of al-Maliki, the National Intelligence Estimate certainly makes the case. There is probably no one serious in America who wants him to stay in office, having either helped or been unable to stop the infiltration of the government and security forces by Shiite extremists backed by Iran.
However, President Bush in his VFW speech had it right. The United States military deposed Saddam Hussein to establish democracy in a difficult part of the world, and we can't suddenly undo our work by strong-arming al-Maliki out of there. It's not for Carl Levin or Hillary Clinton, or George Bush, for that matter, to decide. It's for the Iraqis. Our efforts, and our comments from our political leaders, should be designed to nudge the current government in the right direction and help develop credible alternatives the next time Iraqis go to the polls.
On the troop drawdowns: Obama suggested that pulling a brigade or regiment or two out of Iraq each month might be an acceptable rate. Warner advised President Bush to announce by Sept. 15 a token withdrawal of U.S. troops by Christmas.
The Obama plan would certainly end the surge, but would have an inverse impact to what he wants to accomplish, which is a soft landing for our exit that would avoid a Vietnamesque bloodbath. Not only will the bad guys be emboldened by our withdrawal, but the troops who remain while the rest ship out will have a corresponding decrease in ability to protect innocent Iraqis. And the fewer units in the field, the less capability they will have to adequately defend themselves. You just know that al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army would both love to administer a coup de grace on our soldiers.
Remember the civilian contractors in Fallujah? You ain't seen nothing yet. Take those four unfortunate victims and multiply by a hundred. Or a thousand.
Warner, meanwhile, says we really only need to bring home 5,000 troops. Okay. For what purpose? To make him feel better? To improve GOP election prospects? To prop up public support for the president or his Iraq strategy? Huh?
Pure symbolism was supposed to have died at the end of the Clinton administration. Let's not bring it back.
If the GOP leader of the Senate Armed Services Committee can't come up with a substantive proposal, then it becomes clear why Congress is supported by only one in five voters. We here at home certainly deserve better.
---
Do you think the Republican National Committee will make considerable use of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire comments on a future terrorism attack helping GOP election prospects?
First, it shows that there's some default condition that makes Republicans better at dealing with terrorism. That's true only by historical accident in that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch right as the final touches were being put on an anti-terror strategy that started being formed under Clinton. And while it's a fact that Republicans are stronger by a wide margin on national defense, it's not necessarily so in the limited area of terrorism, where Democrats have yet to prove themselves under the current national anti-terror policy.
Second, and perhaps more damaging, is the concept that if we are hit hard next summer or early fall, that Democrats main concern will be the loss of their election hopes. That's the sort of thinking that voters have rejected numerous times over the years and could end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
