The Mankato Free Press takes incumbents to task over Iraqi policy in an editorial, "We can't have it both ways in Iraq":
Another atrocity in Iraq occurs as candidates for office, mostly incumbents, try to defend the plan.
The plan is fuzzy at best. It involves putting more pressure on the Iraqis to take more control of their own security. Political interests at home are pushing the agenda in Baghdad.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Iraqi leaders last week making a not so subtle hint that the country has to work more quickly toward its own security and as a first step, toward reducing the sectarian violence ravaging the Iraqi people and catching U.S. soldiers in more than a little crossfire.
In this respect, the news is only getting worse.
By the Iraqi government’s own estimate, sectarian attacks have increased 10 times since the start of the year and 100 people a day lose their lives because of it. Most are Iraqis.
As the security situation worsens, there seem to be two views coming from Washington. President Bush told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that he was “under no time pressure to curb the sectarian violence,” according to a report in the Washington Post.
At the same time, members of Congress running for re-election, like Republican Gil Gutknecht, have urged more pressure on the Iraqi government, and Gutknecht has suggested some withdrawal of troops sooner rather than later to make that more immediate.
Others in Congress, including Rep. Mark Kennedy, say there should be no pressure until the terrorists are defeated. Sen. Norm Coleman, another Republican and Bush supporter, says we should apply pressure but no timeline.
The problem with all of this is that the American people are not going to stand for it much longer. Many feel the Iraqis have had enough “non-timeline” time to get the country under control.
As the Post reported, Maliki is actually moving in a direction that seems opposite of urgent. The Post report says American officials and even some Iraqis are frustrated with Maliki, who apparently has postponed plans to convene a reconciliation meeting between Shiite and Sunnis and “postponed” measures to disband militias.
Increasingly, people like Gutknecht, and according to Gutknecht, leaders of the Armed Services Committee, also will not stand for the president to stand by and continue to say progress is being made, when, if there is, it is not apparent to the American people.
And that may be the most important fact in the entire debate.
As a member of Congress or the administration, you can’t say you’re holding Iraqis more accountable for their own security if you can’t tell the American people exactly, what, and under what timeline you have directed Maliki to make progress.
Gutknecht opposes setting a timeline. Here is his response to a Minnesota Newspaper Association questionnaire:
Gil Gutknecht-Republican-District 1
Terrorism: Rate the effectiveness of the current war on terrorism. Do you support a specific timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq? Is so, what is it? Will you vote to end the war in Iraq?
I think we need to be clear about what we are fighting. We are fighting radical Islam and those who use terrorism to try and destroy liberty, freedom, and democracy. There has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since the terrorist attacks of September 11th and numerous attempts have been deterred. After these attacks, Congress passed stronger laws and created intelligence programs that are strengthening our ability to fight terrorists and protect our country.I do not support a specific timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. I do believe that, ultimately, one of the ways we are going to force Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their country is the gradual drawing down of U.S. troops. Many will still remain to help in a supporting roll, but the day to day tasks of policing the streets must fall to Iraqi soldiers. It is their country.
In his answer, Tim Walz discusses the criteria by which a timetable should be set.
Comments