An Iraq Resolution, This Time with Teeth

Remember the nonbinding resolution Congress approved that lightly chastised Bush as command in chief of the armed forces for the continuing failure in Iraq? No one else does either. That's the problem with nonbinding resolutions, they don't actually do anything but express disapproval without any consequences. It seems that senate Democrats have decided to give the Iraq question another go, only this time the resolution may actually mean something.

The Reid Joint Resolution builds on the longstanding Democratic position on Iraq and the Levin-Reed Amendment: the current conflict in Iraq requires a political solution, Iraq must take responsibility for its own future, and our troops should not be policing a civil war. It contains binding language to direct the President to transition the mission for U.S. forces in Iraq and begin their phased redeployment within one-hundred twenty days with a goal of redeploying all combat forces by March 31, 2008. A limited number of troops would remain for the purposes of force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter-terror options.

"The President's strategy in Iraq is not working, and Congress must decide whether to follow his failed policies or whether to change course," said Senator Reid. "Democrats believe, as does an overwhelming majority of the American people, that the time has come to transition the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq. Hopefully, Senate Republicans will now join Democrats and the American people in calling for a change in course. They must put doing the right thing above protecting the President."
As of right now the resolution seems to consist of little more than bullet points, some of which are of the "We Support Our Troops" ilk. Clearly this thing needs to be fleshed out a little more completely before it's brought up for a vote, otherwise if it's passed Democrats could bear the political burden of having passed a resolution that amounts to little more than a mission statement. Bush has remained intransigent on the issue, saying little other than threatening a veto of any Congressional directive to set a hard deadline to withdraw troops. To date Bush has vetoed only a single bill, one seeking to expand research for embryonic stem cells.

Few would argue at this point that Iraq is not a mess, and even General Petraeus, the current commanding officer of US troops in Iraq, suggests that non-military methods may be a better way to improve the situation.

Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, warned that military force alone wouldn’t succeed in ending the current bloodshed in Iraq, yet is necessary to improve security in the violence-torn country.

"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus said in his first news conference since taking over command last month, adding that political negotiations were crucial for a long lasting peace.

Political negotiations "will determine in the long run the success of this effort," he said.

Petraeus further stated that talks should include "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them."
He's obviously not agreeing with the Democrats that it's time to start pulling out US troops, but if even the recently appointed (by Bush) military commander thinks that shifting the focus towards political solutions is the way to go, it should be a sign that the military option really hasn't worked so far.

It remains to be seen whether Iraq will stabilize in the absence of an overwhelming US military presence, but with more training of Iraqi soldiers and police as an ongoing project, presumably there will come a point in the not-so-distant future when control of the country will have to be handed off to its people. Maybe setting a deadline will light fires under the asses of those in training positions to make sure that gets done properly.

web address: http://suicidegirls.com/news/all/20583/An-Iraq-Resolution-This-Time-with-Teeth/