Iraq, Those rebellious Republicans
Republicans are abandoning Iraq like rats from a sinking ship. So why is
one Senate Democrat tossing them a lifeline? 
Matthew Yglesias
 
When Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana started making noises
about breaking with the Bush administration on Iraq two weeks ago, I was
deeply skeptical that he or anyone else in the GOP would actually do
anything about it. 

Still, the political pressure facing Republican members is intense. Now
Lugar is being joined by a growing chorus of Republican critics, including
Lamar Alexander, Judd Gregg and Bob Bennett in the Senate, and various
members in the House. 

Bush himself is a lame duck, off the ballot in 2008 and forever after.
Iraq will almost certainly leave Bush with a terrible legacy - marking him
as one of the biggest presidential failure in American history. From his
perspective it makes sense to do anything and risk any price - to see any
number of American, British and other coalition soldiers die, to see any
number of Iraqis killed, to waste any sum of money, to do any amount of
damage to US diplomacy or the American military - in order to preserve any
chance, no matter how slim, that Iraq might be salvaged

To Republican senators and members of the House of Representatives, things
look different. National security demagoguery served them well in 2002 and
2004, but burned them in 2006. The Bush administration's decision to
respond to the clear anti-war sentiments of the electorate by doubling
down has put them in an awkward position. 

The best tactic they seem to have to maintain the viability of the
pro-Bush position is to dodge questions about Iraq and try to hide behind
General David Petraeus' fatigues, insisting that nothing can be said until
he delivers his "surge" report in September. 

The questions, however, can't be avoided forever, which means the GOP
faces a potential electoral apocalypse unless it does the unthinkable and
actually defies Bush - and a Republican base that remains resolutely
pro-war - and starts voting for measures that will end the war. It's a
difficult choice, but one that could push some Republicans into the
anti-war camp and lead to real progress.

Real progress, that is, if only Ken Salazar, Colorado's Democratic
Senator, were not seemingly determined to throw a lifeline to sinking
Republican members. 

Democratic leaders have been hoping to use the looming Defence Department
authorization - a bill that authorises the Pentagon budget for the next
year - as an opportunity to force votes on measures that would
significantly curtail the president's war-making in Iraq. Either
Republicans would sign on to such measures, thus starting to bring the war
to an end, or else they would stand firm behind the president, setting
themselves up for a political fiasco in 2008. 

Then along came the Salazar Amendment, which "would make the Iraq Study
Group [ISG] recommendations the basis for future US strategy in Iraq". The
ISG report itself was badly inadequate when it was released: a cutting
statement on the problem in Iraq, followed by recommendations that ignored
the report's own analysis. 

That was in December. After December came January. Then February, March,
April, May, June, and now it's July. Out of date at the moment it was
released, the report is now even more obsolete, given that the past months
have seen no progress whatsoever toward the sort of political
reconciliation among Iraq's factions that the ISG saw as central to its
recommendations. 

Even worse, the Salazar Amendment is utterly toothless, simply proclaiming
that it will establish various things "as United States policy" without
including any measures that would actually force the president to change
course in any regard. 

Finally, its pretence to be ending the war is a sham. According to
Salazar's office the legislation would set "conditions that could lead to
redeployment of US combat brigades not needed for force protection as
early as the first quarter of 2008 if diplomatic, infrastructure, and
security benchmarks are met". But of course if Iraq is secured then the
"combat brigades not needed for force protection" will be withdrawn. 

The war goes on and on and on because the US military and the Iraqi
government can't secure the country. Security, in turn, can't be provided
unless Iraq's political conflicts are substantially resolved. The hopes
for doing that are, at this point, extremely poor no matter what happens,
but the large American military presence in Iraq makes this harder, not
easier, to achieve. 

The rats, in short, are fleeing the sinking ship of the Bush
administration. But instead of getting drowned for their sins, the Salazar
amendment threatens to keep them afloat while doing nothing whatsoever to
improve American policy in the region. 


-- 
visitate http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm 

http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm

questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news segnala gli abusi ad abuse@newsland.it