A wise first-grade teacher once told me that when dealing with a child an adult should create two options that are acceptable. When dealing with the Iraq supplemental one option is going to be that President Bush will veto the bill.
The challenge for war opponents is to create a number of alternatives that are acceptable to us and perceived as reasonable by the public. I believe after Bush vetoes three different Iraq supplemental bill it will be difficult for him to blame Democrats politically for the money not being approved.
Below are conditions I would like to see attached to the next Iraq supplemental bill.
Conditions attached to Iraq supplemental
1.The Department of Defense shall provide a list of military facilities, including barracks and other infrastructure to support troops and military hardware, constructed in Iraq that cannot be removed upon the withdrawal of U.S. forces. The DOD shall provide the possible disposition of these facilities upon withdrawal of U.S. forces and an explanation of how these facilities serves U.S. national interests.
2.The Iraqi parliament needs to vote that it supports maintaining U.S. troop levels in Iraq at or about the current level for the next year if the violence continues at or about the current level.
3.When (if) the Iraqi parliament votes for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq, the withdrawal shall be at least 10% complete within 90 days and at least 85% complete within 180 days.
Empowering the Iraqi parliament to end the occupation will be good for a number of reasons.
If the United States starts taking the Iraqi parliament seriously as a sovereign government--as opposed to a colonial legislature--perhaps other countries and the Iraqi people will start taking the legislature more seriously.
If the Iraqi parliament has the power to end the occupation, factions are less likely to boycott the elections. It creates real stakes for participating in the process.
Having the Iraqi parliament vote to continue the occupation will give U.S. forces more legitimacy in pursuing the mission of decreasing lawlessness and violence.
And we should start to have a debate about the extent the U.S. government has quietly implemented a policy of constructing permanent bases.