|
| March 29, 2007 7:50 AM
Problem Senators
By the Editors
Not a lot has changed in Iraq over the last two weeks except that some tentative signs of progress have continued to trickle in. Sens. Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson — the Republican and Democrat from Nebraska, respectively — nonetheless switched in that short period from opposing a set date for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to supporting one. On March 15, both voted against a resolution establishing a March 2008 pullout; on Tuesday, both voted for this deadline, which was included in the Iraq supplemental-spending bill.
In November 2005, Nelson said, “We’re all anxious to get out of there, but we’re not anxious to get out of there by setting a timetable that tells the opposition, the insurgency, when we’re going to leave so they can wait us out.” Earlier this year he was still talking up “benchmarks” as opposed to “dates for withdrawing.” Hagel has said, “I don’t like time frames because it gives the president no flexibility, and I think you always must have flexibility in these things and a judgment call by the president.”
So, what gives? Nelson said in a press release on Tuesday that an amendment to strip the withdrawal date from the spending bill went too far in removing other language he supports (e.g., a statement that Iraq is in a civil war, and a call for diplomatic engagement from the Iraqi and U.S. governments). Nelson would have us believe that preserving this language is more important than — to borrow his own terms — not telling the enemy when we’re going to leave. We suspect Nelson really just wanted to get in the same place as the rest of the Democratic caucus on this issue.
Hagel gave a more extended exposition of his view in a floor speech. He said that “the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people.” This is a truism. The question is: By which Iraqis? Will the future be determined by Sunni terrorists and Shiite radicals, or by a relatively moderate government trying to hold the country together and avoid horrific bloodletting? A U.S. pullout would tip the scales toward the former Iraqis, a continued commitment toward the latter.
Hagel said — again, unassailably — that “the future of Iraq will be determined by a political accommodation by the people in Iraq.” But what kind of accommodation? The splintering of the country into various armed camps (one of them perhaps dominated by al Qaeda) would be a political settlement of sorts. That is surely where Iraq will head if we pull out prematurely.
Indeed, the “surge” is not a substitute for a political strategy but part of one, because only after the security situation is improved will it be possible to marginalize the radicals. There have been encouraging political developments in recent weeks that have coincided with the surge (a purge of Sadrists from the interior ministry and a Maliki outreach trip to Sunnis in Ramadi, for instance). Without the surge, Sadr wouldn’t be hiding, and would be in a much stronger position to influence the political accommodation Hagel supports.
Hagel’s speech lurched into the nonsensical when he said he “will not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy in Iraq.” That’s precisely what he’s doing. Moreover, he wants to mandate it. The policy crafted by former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld — minimizing the American military commitment in the hopes of convincing the Iraqis to “pull up their socks” — was manifestly failing. But Hagel wants to end the surge and return to the Rumsfeldian approach. “If we are making real progress in Iraq, then why are we putting more and more combat troops into Iraq?” Hagel asked. This is obtuse. It is because we are committing more troops in a different strategy — one that draws on lessons from past counterinsurgencies — that we may finally be seeing signs of progress.
Hagel argued that the Senate bill “does not impose a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.” Really? It mandates that the drawdown begin in 120 days. It establishes the “goal” — whatever that means exactly — of completing the drawdown by March 2008. Hagel made much in his speech of Congress’s being a coequal branch of government with the executive. So it is. But that doesn’t mean its role is to manage military operations. The Senate bill is, at the very least, of dubious constitutionality.
Hagel repeated the fiction — popular among critics of the war — that we can, even after we have “redeployed,” continue a limited counterterrorism mission in Iraq. No one ever explains how we would do that in an environment almost certain to include a worsening civil war, ever more beleaguered government security forces, and resurgent Shiite militias. With the surge showing promise, Hagel, Nelson, and the rest of the Democrats want to pull the plug on it and guarantee our defeat in Iraq. They can try to dress it up all they like, but that’s what their mandated withdrawal would do.
We never thought we’d say this, but we much prefer the Chuck Hagel of two weeks ago. |
| | 
|
|
► Subscribe to National Review magazine
here
or NR / Digital here. |
