In the week before Thanksgiving, as Congress was struggling to finish its business so they could rush home, the House of Representatives erupted into a nasty debate that made the Prime Minister's Questions look like a tea party. Earlier in the week, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa) had publicly called for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, taking the Capitol by surprise. Republicans, however, deftly maneuvered a resolution on a U.S. troop withdrawal to the floor for a vote, but not before cleverly rephrasing Rep. Murtha's position so that the resolution called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Otto von Bismarck would have been proud.
Even though Rep. Murtha had called for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops, the new wording that called for an immediate withdrawal allowed Republicans to denounce Democrats for cutting and running. Pretty slick, huh? Yeah, well, maybe just a little too slick. The Republican strategy was working fine until freshman Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) got up and somehow managed - probably inadvertently but ineloquently nevertheless - to call Rep. Murtha a coward. In rare form, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. ran across the aisle to yell at Rep. Schmidt and Democrats booed her from the floor.
The House eventually voted down the revised resolution 403 to 3. Only three Democrats - of whom Rep. Murtha was not one - voted for it. More Democrats would have voted for a resolution calling for a gradual withdrawal, but Republicans did not allow them that option. As such, the House overwhelmingly voiced disapproval of an immediate withdrawal, giving Republicans the cover that they need to start talking about a gradual withdrawal in time for the 2006 midterm elections.
This may seem just a tad slimy - and it is - since Rep. Murtha endured scathing criticism for advocating a reasonable policy that deserves and will get more face time, but then no one ever said that democracy was pretty. Regardless, Democrats have pouted and Republicans have played tricks long enough. It is time for both sides to grow up and face reality. The United States needs an exit strategy, not because we are losing, but because we have accomplished what we needed to accomplish.
Democrats love to complain about the changing rationale for the invasion of Iraq. We went into Iraq because we thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. All of the intelligence, regardless of its accuracy, suggested that he did. Not to go to war based on that intelligence when everyone thought it was accurate would have been negligent. Saddam did not have any weapons, but it is better to be safe than sorry. And as long as we were there, the administration argued, we might as well sow the seeds of democracy in the Middle East. Personally, I think that encouraging democracy and capitalism in other countries is like a magician revealing his secrets to the crowd, but even Democrats must admit that there is something to be said for the idea that spreading democracy makes the United States safer.
The real rub is that the administration wanted to stay in Iraq until that democracy was in full bloom. That was the mistake. Ensuring a stable security situation in a country that seems to want some modern-day Julius Caesar to divide it in partes tres instead was never a realistic goal. The administration needs to forget about ensuring security in Iraq. That is not our job. As such, our sole criterion for deciding when to leave Iraq should be whether we have succeeded in introducing democracy, regardless of whether it actually takes root.
That introduction is nearly complete. On October 15, 2005, Iraqi citizens voted on a proposed constitution in a nation-wide referendum. After ten days of ballot counting and auditing, Iraqi electoral officials announced that Iraqis had in fact approved the new constitution by a wide margin, with roughly 79% voting for the new constitution and 21% voting against it. On December 15, Iraqis will vote for a national parliament.
On the prospects of democracy in Iraq, al Qaeda operatives freely admit that they are in a struggle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and that without popular support, they cannot prevail. Terrorists have nothing but radical Islamic extremism to offer Iraqis. By ensuring a fair constitution and free elections, the United States has offered Iraqis an alternative - a democratic hope. After the December 15th elections, it will be time for us to gradually withdraw so that Iraqis can make that choice on their own.
As far as our own strategic concerns, the United States needs to withdraw gradually so that we can decide how best to continue fighting the war on terror.
Jonathan D. McPike is a sophomore in the School of Public Affairs and the College of Arts & Sciences
