The Democrats' dangerous Iraq policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to Reuters, "Democrats... said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months". By "Democrats," however, Reuters means not the party as a whole but only Senators Levin, Reid, and Biden, all of whom appeared on the Sunday talk-show circuit to push for a change in Iraq policy. And the Reuters article is even more misleading than that. Levin called for "a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Reid called for redeployment "within the next few months" but at the discretion of military commanders, and Biden called for redeployment and, in Reuters' words, "an international conference on Iraq, that would include Iran, Syria and Turkey".

Like Atrios, I think it's a good idea for Democrats to float a redeployment policy. In general. In more specific terms, promoting redeployment could be a dangerous strategy for them. And the reason is this: Ultimately, Iraq policy will continue to be set by the president, not by Congress. Although Bush has said he is open to new ideas, he is not likely to submit to Democratic ones. He will more likely accept the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, in part if not in whole. True, the ISG's recommendations could include redeployment, or phased withdrawal in some form. And Bush may call for redeployment once he has the ISG's cover. But what if the situation in Iraq then worsens? What if it spirals ever more out of control without U.S. forces to provide at least some security? If that happens, blame could shift from Bush to the Democrats, with Democrats and their policy being held accountable. This could hurt Democrats heading into '08.

This is why I tend to agree with the caution expressed by paradox at The Left Coaster: "Carl Levin should shut up until the Democratic Senate and House majority leadership come to a wise, astute Democratic position on the Iraq War... Demanding instant 'change' on Iraq by Democrats only imperils our troops with unreality and opens the door for Democrats to be trapped. We had to win the 2004 election to stop the war and we didn't. We now can control the agenda with what little leverage we have, if we Democrats have unity, patience, and the faith to let the leadership deliberately play out the best of our options."

The fact is, Democrats aren't going to change anything. Insofar as last Tuesday's election was a referendum on the Iraq War -- and it wasn't just that -- it was a vote against Bush, not for the Democrats (a vote against "stay the course," but not a vote for a specific course to replace it). In response, and with Congress in their control, they ought to continue to criticize Bush when and where possible. It is his war, after all, and he must be held accountable for it to the bitter end. But to promote a formal policy of phased withdrawal would only be to invite criticism. And, again, this is because no policy will be a good policy. Or, rather, no policy will fix the situation in Iraq. Even if redeployment is the least-bad option, and it may very well be, it could still look like failure if Iraq collapses entirely.

Americans want change. Last Tuesday, they voted for change in overwhelming numbers. But Americans don't take well to failure. Right now, it is clear that Bush's Iraq policy has failed -- the war has not gone as its warmongering architects expected it to go, and they have been largely discredited by it. Whatever cover he finds in the ISG, however, his policy will still have been a failure, whatever the inevitable spin of success. Again, the Democrats ought to press him to change course -- and, just as crucially, investigate his administration for evidence negligence and malfeasance -- but taking control of Iraq policy would also mean accepting responsibility for the eventual outcome in Iraq. And the outcome in Iraq is bound to be bad. Do Democrats really want to take responsibility for Iraq policy right now?

I would say no. It makes much more sense, in my view, for Democrats to criticize without actually taking control of policy. Not that they're even in a position to do so. With both houses of Congress now under their control, they are finally in a position to check and balance the White House, to investigate apparent abuses and to demand answers and accountability for everything pertaining to the Iraq War -- and for everything else for that matter, including the treatment of detainees and the NSA's illegal eavesdropping program. I don't even think the Democrats need a unified policy on Iraq. If anything, what they need is to find some agreement on how to handle the issue of Iraq. Ultimately, the formulation of Iraq policy should be left to the Democratic contenders for the presidency. They'll be in a position to present their views to primary voters and to debate with one another the best course for Iraq. What is the sense of committing to a policy now?

This isn't to say that I necessarily disagree with Levin, Reid, and Biden on substance, nor with any of the other leading Democrats who are publicly espousing change. It's just to say that a little perspective is in order.