Nearly five years after President Bush promised he would “change the tone in Washington” in his 2000 presidential campaign, the political tone has finally changed – not by the president’s own doing, mind you, but by his falling poll numbers and the continuing events in Iraq.
From a tone of unquestionable patriotism that inextricably linked Iraq to the war on terror, we now have a president who on Sunday said, “People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq.”
The president’s conciliatory comments came after a heated debate in the House of Representatives over a resolution for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The resolution, oddly enough, was authored not by Democrats, but by Republicans, who wanted to have the debate on their own terms.
The hastily scheduled debate, set for a few hours before the end of the House’s business day, set off some heated language and personal attacks, including one Ohio Republican who read a statement from an injured Marine that read, “Marines don’t cut and run; cowards do.”
The Republican-authored resolution, which called for immediate withdrawal, differed from a proposal by moderate Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania that would have called for a six-month staged withdrawal.
Whether the issue is a staged or immediate withdrawal, we are finally having the open and honest debate about our Iraq strategy that we should have had more than three years ago when, one month before Congressional midterm elections in 2002, the president urged Congress not to “tie his hands” by making him seek Congressional permission on the moment of using force in Iraq.
Everyone agreed Saddam was a threat, but not everyone agreed on the immediacy of the threat or the proper way of dealing with that threat. Now that the invasion has already occurred and the mistakes leading up to that invasion are clear, the question arises of what is the best way to achieve our objective in Iraq while putting our armed forces in as least harm’s way as possible.
So far President Bush has followed a policy of “Iraqification” – making Iraqis “responsible for their own security” by training a new military to defend the provisional government set up in the wake of Saddam’s defeat. But most experts now agree that it would have been better to leave the existing military in place – not everyone under Saddam necessarily supported his regime over the U.S. invasion (in fact, most deserted their posts when the force of the U.S. invasion became clear).
Rep. Murtha argues that victory in Iraq cannot be achieved militarily, and that the U.S. must withdraw to show Iraqis that they are “free from the United States occupation.” Republicans, meanwhile, argue “stay the course.” In any case, the battle of ideas rages on – in Iraq as well as here at home.
Omar Yacoubi may be reached at yacoubioa@vcu.edu