If you read the Washington Post editorial titled "The Phony Debate" (and linked off the frontpage with the title "Democratic demagoguery on Iraq"), you come away with the idea that the current situation can be squarely blamed on Harry Reid, and that a solution could be found if only the Democrats were willing to compromise with Bush and the Republicans. It is a strange piece from the bizarro world.
It starts off by asserting that we totally got the wrong impression:
The Senate Democratic leadership spent the past week trying to prove that Congress is deeply divided over Iraq, with Democrats pressing and Republicans resisting a change of course. In fact that's far from the truth.
Oh man. And here I thought that the Democrats had been pushing for change in Iraq for the last couple of years now, coming up with a string of proposals, but that they either got voted down, were blocked from even getting to a vote, or were vetoed by Bush. But, not to worry, the Washington Post editors will set us straight.
A large majority of senators from both parties favor a shift in the U.S. mission that would involve substantially reducing the number of American forces over the next year or so and rededicating those remaining to training the Iraqi army, protecting Iraq's borders and fighting al-Qaeda.
Really? Last I looked, "over the next year" constitutes a timetable, and setting a timetable is bad, bad, bad according to the White House and the Republicans. There have been several Democratic proposals which basically boiled down to this, but they all didn't make it. Was that all in my imagination? Also, it's "Al Qaeda in Iraq", an organization which is not the same as "Al Qaeda" and is an "affiliated" organization at best.
The emerging consensus is driven by several inescapable facts. First, the Iraqi political reconciliation on which the current U.S. military surge is counting is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Second, the Pentagon cannot sustain the current level of forces in Iraq beyond next spring without rupturing current deployment practices and placing new demands on the already stretched Army and Marine Corps. Finally, a complete pullout from Iraq would invite genocide, regional war and a catastrophic setback to U.S. national security.
I can't disagree on the first two points. Maybe this editorial is taking a turn for the better. But wait, there's point number 3. It is certainly true that there is risk associated with a complete pullout. However, how could things be worse than they already are? The whole idea of setting a timetable with benchmarks is to try to make an effort to get things to work, without an open end, end then leave, even though this has risks. And since the WaPo editorial board seems to favour a reduction in force, maybe it should be reminded about the fact that the White House and the Republicans have resisted any kind of timetable or mandatory benchmarks. Or pretty much anything else that would make Bush come to Congress and defend how things are going. But, that doesn't matter, because it's all Harry Reid's fault:
The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible.
My head is spinning. A proposal was, once again, brought to the floor that was supported by a majority of Congress. And if you look at the polls, by a majority of the US population, and even a majority of the Iraqi population. But, the Republicans blocked it from getting voted on. So Reid froze any further discussion until the (supposedly magical) month of September. In other words, the Republicans and the White House have shot down all proposals that included binding timetables and/or benchmarks, but if Reid decides to freeze discussion for 2 months, postponing things to a time that Republicans have time and time again claimed would be the time to draw conclusions on Iraq, then Reid is the bad guy.
But then, as now, the country will desperately need a strategy for Iraq that can count on broad bipartisan support, one aimed at carrying the U.S. mission through the end of the Bush administration and beyond. There are serious issues still to resolve, such as whether a drawdown should begin this fall or next year, how closely it should be tied to Iraqi progress, how fast it can proceed and how the remaining forces should be deployed.
The country has made up its mind: a majority support withdrawal (phased or not). It seems that whoever wrote this is more confused. What are we talking about here, a mission that lasts for years to come? What would be the military goals and benchmarks? At the beginning of the piece, it talked about "over the next year or so", but now the author isn't even sure if a reduction should even begin by next year. It doesn't really matter, the message is clear: it's the Democrats' fault.
The Republicans and the White House can block any progress on Iraq, any way they want, but if the Democrats so much as even postpone further discussion for a short while, it's all their fault.