The First Step

Congressional Democrats are asking for dates and accomplishments in Iraq, a first for this war. The terms keep Americans in combat for another year but at least the Democrats are beginning the national dialogue toward ending the occupation. We should have been doing this much earlier. Now that the country is two to one against this war,now that its costs and demonstrable folly are known, Congress should have no qualms about setting clear expectations as it exercises its most fundamental authority, the power of the purse.

Rather than tell BushCheney how to fight the war, Congress is taking him at his word regarding performance and results. But more than that, Congress is saying that we don't want to still be fighting the same war in the same manner a year from now.

Under the House plan, Congress would institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January. The president would have to certify by July 1 that the Iraqi government had made progress toward those goals. If he could not, troops would begin withdrawing, with all troops out of combat by year's end. If Bush could certify progress, he would have until Oct. 1 to certify that all of the benchmarks had been met. If they had not, troops would have to be withdrawn by March.

Whatever happened with the benchmarks, troop withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, under the House bill, and all troops would be out of combat roles by Aug. 31.

This is not micromanaging. This is setting a policy regarding the most pressing issue of the day. The Democrats are right to ask for an end to a destructive failed policy. They ask no more than what has been promised.

Speaker Pelosi responded well to the BushCheney veto threat:

"Never confine your best work, your hopes, your dreams, the aspirations of the American people to what will be signed by George W. Bush, because that is too limiting a factor."

A positive note:

"I look forward to even stronger steps," said Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.), a leading antiwar Democrat. "But this is a major moment in the history of ending the Iraq war."

An ominous note:

But some conservative Democrats said they are reluctant to sign on to any measure that could be construed as limiting Bush's options. "I'm bothered by dates," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said. "I think you still have to go on conditions for staying."

At this point, ANY terms and policies for continued American deployment in Iraq should be thoroughly discussed and understood. I have no confidence that BushCheney will not attempt to distort that discussion in every way possible.

These conditions do nothing to harm the troops--other than keeping them in the shit for another year. What harms the troops is a mission without support. Most Americans don't support the war and occupation in Iraq. Imagine doing the things war requires and seeing your friends blown apart knowing that most of your countrymen don't think the war is in America's best interests. Putting an end to the killing and destruction in that situation will do a lot to improve morale.