Iraq | The Week

last updated 8 January 2015

It was the week that 'œPresident Bush lost control over the Iraq war debate,' said E.J. Dionne in The Washington Post. Even Republican loyalists are now losing faith in the war, and pressing for a timetable to bring our troops home. In a 79-19 vote, the GOP-controlled Senate last week called on the White House to make a 'œsignificant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty' in 2006—a stunning demonstration of Republicans' waning confidence in Bush's leadership. But the real fireworks were in the House, where Rep. John Murtha, a fiercely pro-military Democrat, called for troops to be brought home 'œat the earliest practicable date.' Murtha might be a 'œone-man tipping point,' said Howard Fineman in Newsweek. A 'œgruff, taciturn' Vietnam veteran who makes weekly visits to wounded soldiers, Murtha's call for withdrawal sparked a 'œnear riot' on the House floor, amid charges of cowardice and demagoguery. As 'œfarcical' as it was, the 'œdrama on the floor' was evidence of 'œsomething serious: a transformation of the politics of the war.' Whether the White House duped the nation into invading Iraq is suddenly less important than 'œhow we get out.'

'œWhile we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists,' said Ralph Peters in the New York Post. The consequences of suddenly leaving Iraq would be disastrous—and would almost certainly lead to a terrorist blow—back on U.S. soil. Yet Democrats in Washington are so obsessed with doing political damage to Bush that they ignore the repercussions of a pullout. Withdrawing from Iraq would 'œturn al Qaida into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam.' All hope of democracy in the region would instantly implode. Before long, said Robert Kagan and William Kristol in The Weekly Standard, Iraq might be a terrorist state run by Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 'œwith an oil supply to finance their global activities.' We share Murtha's concern for the soldiers in Iraq—but 'œthe way to honor their sacrifices is by winning.' And week by week, U.S. forces are killing insurgents, and Iraq is making progress.

But 'œwhen will we know we've won?' asked Eugene Robinson, also in The Washington Post. President Bush likes to describe the war as a 'œtest of our nation's resolve,' and to talk tough about 'œstaying the course.' But he's never explained where that course is supposed to end. Congressman 'œMurtha's plan—just get out—isn't really attractive, but at least it's a plan.' And what about the consequences of staying in Iraq? said H.D.S. Greenway in The Boston Globe. Like Murtha, I too used to think a continued U.S. presence was necessary to stop Iraq from spiraling into civil war. But it's growing increasingly clear that our troops have become 'œmore part of the problem than the solution.' Their presence in Iraq only feeds the insurgency, and weakens the resolve of Iraq's newly minted soldiers to defend their own nation. If a civil war is in the cards in Iraq, it'll happen whether we're there or not.