I was just browsing over at Slate and came across an article whose first paragraph confirmed my worst fears about the recent vote in Congress:
Now that Democrats have stripped their troop-withdrawal timetable from the war funding bill, it's clear that American forces will remain in Iraq through 2008. It also seems likely that they will stay much, much longer. The leading presidential candidates in both parties recognize the dangers of a rapid pullout, and achieving stability in Iraq is going to take a decade.[Emphasis mine. DM]
Let's take this in two parts:
2009
I don't remember where I read it, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But the budget for Fiscal 2008, which starts in October contains full funding for the War for the year. And the budget is expected to pass without any serious difficulties.
That being the case, there's no way anyone will pull the plug just weeks ahead of the Presidential election. So that pretty much means the problem gets handed off to the next President.
This is bad for so many reasons. First, because our continued occupation of Iraq is actively harmful of the US interests to say nothing of the damage we are doing to them. And who knows what reckless actions Bush may yet take (e.g., in Iran) in his remaining months.
But it's bad politics, too. I fully expect the next President to be a Democrat. And without getting overconfident, I think it's prudent to plan as if that will be the case. So passing this problem off to a time when both the White House and Congress are likely to be in Democratic hands seems like the worst of both worlds. The Democrats take heat now for being ineffective and then have to handle all the fallout from whatever action is taken in the next term.
2013
Of course, a lot depends on who the next President is. I don't want to get into parsing the differences between the three leading candidates. I do think all three have shown a marked tendency (to say the least) to be influenced by 'practical considerations' as seen from the DC insider perspective.
In any case, I expect the Republicans to still have a sizeable minority in Congress. And the Democratic contingent will still contain a lot of demi-Democrats (Blue Dogs, Liebercrats and their kindred) who are heavily influenced by Republican talking points.
The biggest factor in favor of a withdrawal is likely to come from the military itself, which seems to have been strong-armed into acquiescing to the White House's ruinous policy. It's quite likely that the generals will provide the cover for a significat de-escalation. But enough to qualify as actually ending the occupation?
What does seem undeniable is that we are no closer today to ending the occupation than we were a year ago. I have a great fear that this goal will remain in the elusive future for some time to come.
What do you think?