[Mb-civic] Slouching toward withdrawal - Thomas Oliphant - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  Slouching toward withdrawal

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist  |  November 29, 2005

WASHINGTON

AMONG THE ''benchmarks," the dates certain, and the dates uncertain for 
the withdrawal of US forces from the mess President Bush has made of 
Iraq, there are two important questions:

Are these alternatives to a wretched situation really alternatives? And 
how much difference is there really among them and between them and 
Bush's secretive, deceiving status quo?

In just a few weeks, after yet another round of voting and jockeying, 
Iraq is going to have an elected government, and the question of whether 
Americans should fight and die for it is going to be front and center.

Over here, where politics sets the contours for what goes on where the 
fighting is, these questions are not as partisan as the media would 
suggest. The vast majority of Republicans in the Senate are now aboard 
the benchmarks bandwagon they once helped the administration resist.

Those who have read the resolution that passed this month by a lopsided 
margin know that among the demands for specific targets in training 
fully combat-ready Iraqi battalions there is language setting the stage 
for withdrawal.

The assumption is that there is a way to achieve sufficient success in 
preparing Iraq to stand on its own against the insurgency. There is also 
an assumption that it is helpful to build a fire under both the 
fledgling Iraqi government and the Bush administration -- hence the 
benchmarks.

Among the 19 senators who voted against the resolution offered for the 
leadership by Republican John Warner of Virginia, two names stand out -- 
John McCain and John Kerry. To possible presidential candidate McCain, 
there have never been enough US boots on the ground, the best way to get 
American forces out is to win the war, and we should remain for however 
long that takes.

You would think that would be Bush's clear position, but you would be 
wrong. It might once have been. However, Bush is getting ready to reduce 
the troop presence below its current level of around 150,000 after next 
month's parliamentary elections.

Beyond that, the president's sorry record of secrecy and deception makes 
guessing silly. What is noteworthy is that the recent statements of 
Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice suggest something between a hope 
and a plan to draw down further next year; whether that would be based 
on claims of success or the actual achievement of it is unclear, but 
Vice President Cheney's comparative quiet on the subject suggests a 
policy conundrum and a battle still unfolding.

What is also noteworthy is that from outside the Bush circle -- from 
McCain and neoconservative true believers -- there are frequently aired 
concerns that Bush may reduce the force level more for political reasons 
that purely military ones. Their concerns would be even more vocal were 
it not for their uncertainty over what kind of government Iraqis will 
elect and whether it will respond to the wishes of frustrated citizens 
by climbing on the benchmark or date certain bandwagons.

But to possible presidential candidate Kerry, the Senate resolution was 
so watered down that it failed his test for specificity on a withdrawal 
plan. The demand for one from Bush was the subject of a separate 
amendment from Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan that failed in a 58-40 vote.

Kerry's position, however, was unusual among Democrats, who as the 
''out" party tend to be all over the map on the issue, reflecting the 
public's ambivalence as much as their party's disarray. The final tally 
on Warner's proposal included yes votes both from Democrats who favor 
setting a date (Russ Feingold of Wisconsin) and those who do not 
(Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden).

With all this as background, some tentative answers to the basic 
questions are possible. The politicians here are not so much proposing 
alternatives as attempting to pressure Bush on behalf of a restive 
public that prefers the truth and wants results from a clear policy next 
year. It should be obvious, but needs emphasizing, that Congress is not 
going to legislate an end to the US involvement over Bush's objection.

The differences among a specific proposal for a specific date (Kerry or 
Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania or Feingold), a proposal to 
train Iraqis faster and better (Biden), and a simple statement that the 
next 150 to 180 days will be decisive (Warner) is not that great as a 
practical matter.

The real gulf is between the pressure for a decisive turn next year and 
an indefinite commitment from an untrustworthy administration. If it is 
not bridged by results or changes in policy, Bush's troubles will only 
deepen.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant at globe.com.  


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/29/slouching_toward_withdrawal/
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related