Between Iraq and a Hard Place
The President has challenged critics of his Iraq War policy to come up with their own ideas:
Speaking in his weekly radio address on Saturday, Mr Bush said members of Congress had the right to express their views but he challenged his critics to propose their own ideas for halting the violence in Iraq.
“Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance of success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible,” said Mr Bush.
It’s a fair point, but one can’t help but be reminded of Homer Simpson’s exasperated line to Marge, “First, you didn’t want me to get the pony. Now, you want me to take it back. Make up your mind!”
President Bush’s request for alternative points of view is heartwarming. But since he doesn’t even listen to his own hand-picked experts on such matters, why take his latest offer to listen to those he has belittled and marginalized for the past six years as anything other than petulant and defensive?
I’m tempted to echo the sentiments in this Tom Tomorrow cartoon from November. If only we could travel back to February 2003 and heed the words of, among many others, Gov. Howard Dean:
I believe it is my patriotic duty to urge a different path to protecting America’s security: To focus on al Qaeda, which is an imminent threat, and to use our resources to improve and strengthen the security and safety of our home front and our people while working with the other nations of the world to contain Saddam Hussein.
Had I been a member of the Senate, I would have voted against the resolution that authorized the President to use unilateral force against Iraq – unlike others in that body now seeking the presidency.
I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations.
But in the words of Lady Macbeth, “What’s done cannot be undone.” All we can do now is find the best way forward, and hold the people who blundered accountable.
By the way, in case anybody actually wanted to know, progressives do have a plan for Iraq. It’s called strategic redeployment:
To strike the right balance, expectations must change to fit today’s grim realities. The Bush administration must recognize that Iraq is not yet a real democracy nor will it be anytime soon, and it is not going to trigger a wave of democracy in the Middle East. Americans need and deserve a clear exit strategy for Iraq that spells out how much longer American troops will be involved in large numbers and what it will cost. Iraq’s leaders need to understand that the United States is not going to serve as a crutch indefinitely and that no one is going to solve their problems for them.
The end goals of this strategic shift are clear: to protect the American people at home and abroad; to get Iraq to the most stable position as quickly as possible; to make sure Iraq’s tensions do not spill over into a regional conflict; and to turn the tide against extremist Islamists. To accomplish this, the United States must implement a policy of strategic redeployment that has five parts:
You can read a PDF of the entire plan here.
Despite my many years of training as a Shakespeare teacher, I find myself surprisingly unprepared to evaluate this plan on a practical level, though there’s much in here that I like. But I just wanted to make the point that the progressive movement does actually have a plan. So when President Bush, or his supporters, ask — petulantly, defensively, as they will — “So, what’s your plan?,” it’s worth noting that those who were most against the war to begin with really do have a serious answer. I doubt that anyone in this administration is serious about listening to it.