It’s indisputable–even elementary–that in order to solve a policy challenge, you need to assess it and recommend an appropriate course of action. If the problem changes, then you have to reassess your approach. If your approach is simply to recommend ‘something different’ from the current policy–no matter what that policy is, you’re not taking the issue seriously. In Iraq news, Congressional Democrats continue to press for a ‘change in course’ on Iraq. This is what they called for prior to the beginning of Operation Phantom Thunder, during the operation, and now that the operation is nearing an end. Congressional Quarterly reports:
Democrats in both chambers responded Tuesday to testimony by the top U.S. military and civilian officials in Iraq with pledges to introduce legislation that would require a shift in the U.S. mission and mandate at least the start of a troop withdrawal, if not its completion… Under Petraeus’ plan, the troop drawdown will begin with several thousand soldiers and Marines this year and, by next summer, reduce the level to about 130,000 – the same level before Bush announced his so-called surge strategy in January. Petraeus said he would reassess any further reductions in March… After a White House meeting between Bush and leaders from both parties, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called on the president to go beyond the troop reductions Petraeus outlined. “I mean, please,” she told reporters. “It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people [to say] that that is a new direction in Iraq.”
In fact, it’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people to constantly assert–without supporting evidence–that a withdrawal is the right course of action. It’s also an insult to their intelligence to pretend that the insistence on withdrawal is based on anything other than politics. Senators Reed and Levin are approaching things differently. They are reportedly preparing legislation to do what General Petraeus and the White House are recommending. But they defend themselves by asserting that it was their idea first:
In the Senate, Democrats Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island said they were writing a new version of Iraq legislation that the Senate last took up in July. Their new measure probably would require Bush to begin substantial reductions in U.S. forces in 120 days without quantifying them, Reed said. That is basically Petraeus’ recommendation, but Reed pointed out that the senators floated the idea first. Reed and Levin said they had not decided whether to include a binding deadline for completing a withdrawal.
The Politico paints a picture of panicky Democrats trying to come up with a new strategy:
Behind the scenes, though, Democrats are scrambling to deal with a new dynamic on Capitol Hill – they’re the ones who are trying to come up with a new political strategy on the war. Definitive timetables for ending the war are dead on arrival in the Senate, yet embracing Petraeus’ partial withdrawal would give Republicans a significant victory. So Democrats in the Senate, where critical votes are expected next week on the war, spent much of Tuesday trying to finesse legislative language that mandates a withdrawal that’s faster and more robust than what Petraeus wants, yet lacks a requirement for total withdrawal.
Some might see it as a victory for Republicans if Democrats were to embrace Petraeus’s recommendations, but that ought to be beside the point. If the militarily correct course of action is to reduce troops, and it happens to be what Democrats were calling for prior to Petraeus’s testimony, then why not commend Petraeus for arriving at a conclusion that Democrats had reached before him? David Ignatius wondered recently whether Democrats would take ‘yes’ for an answer. It certainly appears that they have no choice–since they seem unable to force anything different. Nevertheless, it looks like the Democratic base will insist on a ‘change of course’ even though the shift by General Petraeus puts the Iraq mission on the course they wanted just weeks ago.
