OPINION & EDITORIAL
Victory evades definition, Bush
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jason Smathers:
- Your Christmas gift: Lighten up! (December 13, 2007)
- America in dire need of education on gender identity (December 7, 2007)
- Getting off or going down: Is porn destructive? (December 5, 2007)
- Catholic group deserves funding, at least for now (November 28, 2007)
Related Stories:
- State of the Union full of empty rhetoric (January 21, 2004)
- Baker-Hamilton report offers ideas, but only Bush can act (December 12, 2006)
- Iraq isn't the city's most pressing issue (November 19, 2002)
- Iraq war needs new solutions (March 14, 2007)
- Troops deserve to come home (April 13, 2007)
by Jason Smathers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Iraq. Again and forever, Iraq.
That is the sense I get from this war. We talk about the war as if it will outlive us.
Over the course of the last four years, every topic that dealt with the war has been touched upon, slammed, treated, evaluated and remarked upon. Despite our best efforts to discover solutions, we've arrived at another stalemate, this time on funding.
While we've been through many standoffs and periods of stagnation, this one is the most important. It is because this must be the last.
We cannot win the Iraq war. That is because we no longer have any conception of what winning would mean. The war began as a campaign to end Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime, and it has become an amalgamation of Shiite militia, Sunni extremists, corrupt cops and al-Qaida influence. Even if we could end the terrorism and suicide bombings in Iraq, there seems to be no indication of who controls the country and how a working government is constructed.
It's time to give America a way out. Both the House and Senate have passed bills that would approve $124 billion in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that would finally lead our military out of Iraq. President Bush will most likely veto the bill, leading to another round of discussion and debate on deadlines and timetables.
However, we need to jump this last hurdle. Patience is quickly running out, and America needs to make a decision. So let's make a few suggestions.
First off, no matter what, we need a deadline. The president has threatened to veto the funding bill because it asks for redeployment of troops in about four months and a total withdrawal by March 31, 2008. Certainly, give the troops enough time to do their job, but realize that once signs of success or failure present themselves, there really is only one way to go: out.
If this troop surge works and security is restored in Baghdad, the al-Anbar Province, or both, then we're on our way to handing over control to the Iraqis and leaving the country. It may take longer, but if the signs of progress exist, withdrawal would make no sense. If this plan fails and you have more of the same violence and chaos, then we still have to leave. As heartbreaking and devastating as failure in Iraq could be, that devastation will extend to this nation if we allow a fatigued, overworked and underappreciated military to remain.
To compromise, Congress needs to move the timetable date back. Redeployment four months from now will only exacerbate problems or crush progress, whatever that may look like. Congress should give troops until the end of the year to show progress and make the final redeployment somewhere around June or August of next year. Cutting off funding now and trying to force an abrupt end to the war could be cataclysmic, not only in terms of Iraq, but in terms of our own political system. Better to hold the president to a deadline that is realistic.
Secondly, the political wrangling needs to be put on hold. Bush may veto the bill because of timelines, but he refuses to waver because he feels his authority being challenged. Certainly the Gonzales affair needs to be investigated, and some would argue Pelosi's trip to Syria is a necessity to rebuilding Iraq with those in the region. However, the reasoning behind it smacks of so much partisan vendetta that any chance of compromise between the Democrat-controlled Congress and President Bush is being stomped in the ground. Both sides need to tone down their aggressive posturing if they have any hope of coming to an agreement about the direction of this war.
Finally, action needs to happen fast. Although President Bush's claim that the military will be left hanging without immediate approval of funding is not quite true, the tug over funding does show a lack of care for the troops. With so much talk of supporting the troops, action to adequately fund them is lacking. Mr. Bush says if funding for the troops doesn't go through, the blood will be on Congress' hands. However, if his grandstanding allows him to leave troops in the field without that funding, he will be to blame. After all, the buck stops with him.
Despite the fact that we are closer than ever to extracting ourselves from this war, it never gets easier to talk about. Writing about this topic almost induces a gut-wrenching sickness; I could not even delve into the plight Iraqis face in the attacks on their country. However, a solution for them cannot continue to include us. This country cannot step forward in any focused or rational way with foreign policy, immigration reform, economic concerns or any decisive movement in the political arena until the fog of war is lifted. That means establishing an end point, a way out. We can minimize the damage, but we have to finally act. Debate already happened; the American people decided they want out. It's time to honor the voice of the people.
Jason Smathers (jsmathers@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in history and journalism.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 7:50am):
It's remarkable that America believes in buying Iraq dinner after viciously raping it. See, world, America is a gentleman.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 10:52am):
It's remarkable that smug Leftists believe in paying American taxes after repeatedly slandering (ad nauseum) her alleged international criminality. See, world, Leftists really are hypocrits.
Go to France.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 3:02pm):
It's remarkable that 10:52 makes such a blanket statement - people can pay taxes but disagree with a country's policies. See, world, conservatives are the hypocrites.
Go back to your little hole in the ground.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 3:11pm):
10:52, whether you like it or not, half of America are Democrats. You better get used to Democratic control of the government, because no sane person would give your party the keys to the country for a LONG LONG time.
Your hero sucks.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 3:50pm):
"We cannot win..."
That's the Defeatocrat message alright.
That is because Leftists never had any intention of helping America achieve victory.
Anyone else recall their pasty-faced treasonous shouts of "Allahu Akbar" as these trustfund baby ghouls mocked our hallowed dead on the DC Mall in view of our still smoldering Pentagon in November 2001? That was in the days leading up to our Afghan campaign. I'll never forget (or forgive) their treasonous, hate-America, Krystalnaght-style street riots (euphemistically called "anti-war" protests)-- and neither should you.
http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 4:10pm):
3:02: Conservatives pay taxes and support the President. There's no hypocrisy in that.
People who allege international criminality should show some moral fiber and stop financing that criminality. Otherwise, they're extraordinary hypocrits. Now stop drooling on your mom's keyboard.
3:11: Whether you like it or not, more than half of voting Americans re-elected YOUR President Bush. So, you'd better get used to the Bush Presidency, because there's absolutely NOTHING you can do about it.
God bless you, Karl Rove, you magnificent b@stard!
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 5:46pm):
I am used to the Bush presidency, and it's been WAY awesome. I love how he's balanced the budget, fixed homeland security, saved New Orleans, provided for maimed troops, captured Osama Bin Laden, and brought the country together for the sake of a strong union.
Like I said, your hero sucks donkey balls.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 6:46pm):
Yeah, the Democratics did such wonderful stuff the last time they were in power for 40 years.
I can't wait to see what happens next.
Anonymous (April 11, 2007 @ 8:48pm):
"Yeah, the Democratics did such wonderful stuff the last time they were in power for 40 years"
I'd take Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton any day over Nixon, Reagan, and Jumpsuit George.
Anonymous (April 12, 2007 @ 8:36am):
Notice how 8:48 conveniently omits the quintessential Leftist wet dream of smilin' Dhimmi Carter.
Anybody old enough to recall the "misery index"? Double digit inflation, unemployment, mortgage rates and gas lines?
Resurgent Islamo-fascism began on Dhimmi Carter's watch with his appeasement of Ayatollah Khomenei and the PLO.
Four years and we're still paying in blood and treasure for Carter's collosal mistakes.
And don't even get me started on Bubbah's Cold War "peace dividend" defense cuts for midnite basketball; or his sleepwalking on terrorism.
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." [Ecclesiastes 10:2]
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 7:43pm):
who cares about politics anyway?????
Anonymous (April 24, 2007 @ 7:43pm):
how much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
