More concerned with politics than the interests of the country, House Democrats are set to appove an emergency spending bill with a provision that is sure accrue a veto from President Bush. That provision is a requirement to leave Iraq to Islamists. To pass a clean appropriation and debate the status of the war on its own merits is untenable to some on political grounds
"What's the alternative, to give Bush victory?'' said James McGovern of Massachusetts. "To me, there's no alternative.''
Vice President Cheney observed that the Democratic Leadership
"seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics.''
But is it if it leads to disaster?
No friend of the American effort in Iraq, Hussein Agha, writing for a paper that is no supporter of America; The Guardian, enumerates the problems an early US withdrawal will create in the region
The so-called axis of moderate Arab states - comprising Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - dreads an early US withdrawal. First, because it would be widely interpreted as an American defeat, which would weaken these pro-American regimes while both energising and radicalising their populations.
Second, if the US leaves, the emergence of a Shia regime in Iraq - in itself an offensive prospect to them - would only be a matter of time. Facing Arab antipathy, this regime would be likely to look eastward and forge close ties with its Iranian co-religionists. In the view of most Arabs, this would present a formidable challenge, setting in motion a series of dangerous events - an Iranian-Iraqi alliance; political and material support from Arab countries being offered to disgruntled Iraqi Sunni groups; retaliation by Iraqi forces; and the threat of broader regional involvement.
Third, a US departure risks triggering Iraq's partition. As some Arabs see it, the occupation is what holds the country together. So long as coalition forces are deployed, a full-blown breakup can be avoided.
In contrast, with the Americans gone, the odds of partition would increase dramatically, presenting a threat to the integrity and security of regional states. Exacerbating dormant, and in some cases not so dormant, secessionist tendencies would be one concern. Perhaps more worrying would be the ensuing challenge to the legitimacy of the fundamental tenets of nationhood, state, and national borders....
For Israel too, an American withdrawal could spell disaster. Already, nothing has dented Israeli deterrence more than America's performance in Iraq - an inspiration to Israel's Arab foes that even the mightiest can be brought to heel. An early withdrawal, coming in the wake of last summer's Lebanon war, could put Israel in a dangerous position, handing a victory to Iran - the latest putative threat to Israel's existence - and providing a boost to Syria which may be considering military options to recover the Golan Heights.
There are risks for the smaller Gulf states too. With their large Shia communities and heavy dependence on American protection, they would be threatened by an early US departure from Iraq. In Bahrain, home to an unhappy Shia majority, the fallout could be imminent.
Why should the common American care about any of this? Because a regional war in the Middle East could easily raise global oil prices to $200 or $300 a barrel. What will $10 or $15 a gallon gasoline do to your standard of living? Can Western economies even survive such a thing? Civilization crashed once after Rome fell, and for 700 years thereafter people forgot how dispense with their sewage. It could happen again, don't fool yourself.
But these are not the only disasters that loom. The Muslim analog of the Red Cross, the Red Cresent, also predicts a dire humanitarian situation if the US leaves before Iraq is stable
The president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, the only relief organization operating in Iraq, is calling on the Democratic-led Congress to rethink its troop withdrawal strategy and recognize that Iraq suffers from a worsening humanitarian crisis....
In Washington for a series of advocacy meetings in Congress, Said Hakki, the president of the Iraqi Red Crescent, expressed concern that by setting a withdrawal timetable, the U.S. would abandon Iraq at the height of a humanitarian crisis.
“It is important that Congress identifies that there is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq,” Hakki said in an interview with The Hill. “If they agree there’s a crisis, let’s not have America be a problem but the solution.”
The Iraqi Red Crescent Society or Organization, as it is often referred to, is an auxiliary arm of the Iraqi government and is a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Insisting that he is not a politician, Hakki — a U.S. citizen who spends most of his time in Iraq’s red zones — is pushing for a time-out in what he calls the “partisan squabble” over the U.S. troop withdrawal timetable.
“Let’s not talk about differences, but about what we can agree upon,” Hakki said. If Congress agrees that there is a humanitarian crisis, he asked, “is it justified to set a timetable and leave all those people in a dire position, worse than they were [before 2003]?”
Some Democrats say they are sensitive about regional and humanitarian disaster, just not in Iraq.
But letting reality get in the way of political opportunism is not what the Democrats are about.
As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill — which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest — Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation.
ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing.
"She can't make the briefing tomorrow," a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. "But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length."
You know, she could have just called terrorist-supporting thug Bashar al-Assad instead of travelling to Syria and calling the capital of that fascist state "the road to freedom."
War and Peace are the most serious of issues that we expect our elected leaders to deal with. And we expect them to deal with these issues with a clear and unbiased eye. We certainly expect that they would find the time to talk with the war commanders when they make themselves available specifically to brief them.
How it is that anyone thought that these people could be trusted to be serious and responsible is quite beyond me.
