International Herald Tribune Editorial - Another grim week in Iraq
International Herald Tribune Editorial - Another grim week in Iraq
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: March 11, 2007
Last Monday in Baghdad, a suicide bomber attacked a row of bookstores, killing 20 people. On Tuesday, sectarian attacks killed at least 118 Shiite pilgrims. And on it went.
The White House insists that Baghdad is growing more secure, as the extra infusion of American troops ordered by President George W. Bush begins to take up positions in threatened neighborhoods. But on Thursday, The New York Times reported that the day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, was recommending that those extra 21,500 combat troops — plus the 7,000 support troops Bush somehow forgot to mention — stay on into next year. On the same day, Odierno's boss, General David Petraeus, said that even more U.S. troops could be needed in the near future.
Anyone who wanted to believe that all Bush was seeking was a short-term security push — as part of a larger strategy to extricate U.S. troops from this unwinnable war — now needs to face up to a far less palatable reality. What is under way is a significant and long-term escalation. And as long as Iraq's leaders refuse to make significant political changes, the civil war will continue to spin out of control.
With this backdrop, it is somewhat reassuring to see congressional Democrats getting a little smarter in their gathering efforts to force a policy change. They are still talking about a phased withdrawal and an arbitrary exit date. That's an approach we've never favored without a parallel political strategy to try to contain the chaos and regional strife that are likely to follow. What they can usefully do, and are attempting, is to use the power of the purse constructively to force the White House to give U.S. troops the kind of support they need and to demand some sanity from Iraq's leaders.
Rather than trying to challenge the administration's request for $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, House Democrats now want to add funds to speed the production and delivery of badly needed protective armor, provide better medical care for wounded troops and veterans, and shore up the U.S. Army's eroding combat readiness.
House Democrats also want to make the bill a vehicle for prodding the White House into imposing timetables on an Iraqi government that still refuses to purge its security forces of sectarian thugs and reach out to the country's Sunni Arab minority. We hope they succeed.
In what may have been this week's only good news out of Iraq, a growing number of parliamentarians have begun challenging Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki 's destructive policies. If the White House won't demand more from al-Maliki, congressionally enacted benchmarks could help empower Iraq's more moderate politicians.
Without a more enlightened Iraqi government — and a tougher policy from Washington — next week, and the weeks and months to come, will be no better than the last.
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: March 11, 2007
Last Monday in Baghdad, a suicide bomber attacked a row of bookstores, killing 20 people. On Tuesday, sectarian attacks killed at least 118 Shiite pilgrims. And on it went.
The White House insists that Baghdad is growing more secure, as the extra infusion of American troops ordered by President George W. Bush begins to take up positions in threatened neighborhoods. But on Thursday, The New York Times reported that the day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, was recommending that those extra 21,500 combat troops — plus the 7,000 support troops Bush somehow forgot to mention — stay on into next year. On the same day, Odierno's boss, General David Petraeus, said that even more U.S. troops could be needed in the near future.
Anyone who wanted to believe that all Bush was seeking was a short-term security push — as part of a larger strategy to extricate U.S. troops from this unwinnable war — now needs to face up to a far less palatable reality. What is under way is a significant and long-term escalation. And as long as Iraq's leaders refuse to make significant political changes, the civil war will continue to spin out of control.
With this backdrop, it is somewhat reassuring to see congressional Democrats getting a little smarter in their gathering efforts to force a policy change. They are still talking about a phased withdrawal and an arbitrary exit date. That's an approach we've never favored without a parallel political strategy to try to contain the chaos and regional strife that are likely to follow. What they can usefully do, and are attempting, is to use the power of the purse constructively to force the White House to give U.S. troops the kind of support they need and to demand some sanity from Iraq's leaders.
Rather than trying to challenge the administration's request for $100 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, House Democrats now want to add funds to speed the production and delivery of badly needed protective armor, provide better medical care for wounded troops and veterans, and shore up the U.S. Army's eroding combat readiness.
House Democrats also want to make the bill a vehicle for prodding the White House into imposing timetables on an Iraqi government that still refuses to purge its security forces of sectarian thugs and reach out to the country's Sunni Arab minority. We hope they succeed.
In what may have been this week's only good news out of Iraq, a growing number of parliamentarians have begun challenging Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki 's destructive policies. If the White House won't demand more from al-Maliki, congressionally enacted benchmarks could help empower Iraq's more moderate politicians.
Without a more enlightened Iraqi government — and a tougher policy from Washington — next week, and the weeks and months to come, will be no better than the last.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home