Behold, a timetable

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I don't have time now to analyze this fully, but here's the latest (with some commentary below):

Senate Democrats scored a surprise victory yesterday in their bid to force President Bush to end the Iraq war, turning back a Republican amendment that would have struck a troop withdrawal plan from emergency military funding legislation.

The defection of a prominent Republican war critic, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, sealed the Democrats' win. Hagel, who opposed identical withdrawal language two weeks ago, walked onto the Senate floor an hour before the late-afternoon vote and announced that he would "not support sustaining a flawed and failing policy," adding: "It's now time for the Congress to step forward and establish responsible boundaries and conditions for our continued military involvement in Iraq."

Democratic leaders think the 50 to 48 victory greatly strengthens their negotiating position as they prepare to face down a White House that yesterday reiterated its threat of a presidential veto. The Senate vote was also the first time since Democrats took control of Congress in January that a majority of lawmakers have supported binding legislation to bring U.S. troops home.

I haven't been as aggressive a supporter of a timetable for withdrawal as other critics of the war, largely because in my view the waging of a war (even a bad war) should not be so tightly constrained, but I do think Hagel and (even more so) the Democrats are right on this. The Iraq War has been a failure. It should no longer be allowed to be waged unchecked by those (i.e., Bush and the warmongers) who have waged it thus far, that is, by those who are responsible for its failure. They have done nothing to deserve to be allowed to wage it unchecked, which is what Bush and his Republican enablers obviously prefer. They must be stopped. Or, at least, a serious attempt must be made to stop them. This is, in my view, such an attempt.

A veto may yet come -- or perhaps some compromise that essentially dilutes the timetable to the point of pointlessness. But a veto threat should not stop the Democrats and their few Republican allies from pursuing this as aggressively as possible. They will be called defeatists by those who still support this horrendous blunder, not to mention the horrendously blundering Bush, but they should remember that they are working to stop a war that has been grossly mismanaged, that has been a failure, that has weakened America's ability to respond to crises around the world, that has devastated America's reputation and moral standing in the world, and that is increasingly unpopular with the American people.

Besides, even if they lose -- which is to say, even if their timetable for withdrawal is not followed -- there is another, non-negotiable timetable that Bush and the Republicans cannot avoid. The 2008 presidential election will take place as planned and Bush will be gone by January 2009. A new president will occupy the White House. What matters is that that president is a Democrat -- which is to say, in this context, a president who will not continue to pursue Bush's horrendous blunder. One hopes that withdrawal will be well underway well before that next Inauguration Day, but at least we have that day to look forward to.

**********

Update (3/30/07):

From the AP: "A defiant, Democratic-controlled Senate approved legislation Thursday calling for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq within a year, propelling Congress closer to an epic, wartime veto confrontation with President Bush."

Republicans Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith voted with the Democratic majority. "Democrat" Joe Lieberman voted with the Republican minority.