[tag]Senate[/tag] [tag]Democrats[/tag] are, of course, still [tag]divided[/tag] over a policy for the future of [tag]Iraq[/tag], but instead of focusing on their differences, it’s worth taking a moment to note a point of agreement that has eluded them for a very long time.
The debate in the Senate this week has pushed Dems in two camps: those who believe in a [tag]phased[/tag] [tag]redeployment[/tag] plan that would begin this year but has no set date for a full [tag]withdrawal[/tag] vs. those who prefer a phased redeployment plan that sets a deadline for withdrawal of July 2007. Sens. Levin and Reed are championing the prior; Sens. [tag]Kerry[/tag] and [tag]Feingold[/tag] the latter. Apparently, most of the caucus prefers the option without the firm deadline and the pressure is on Kerry to compromise.
But before internal divisions completely undermine the Dem message, such as it is, the party should emphasize one point: just about all of them are against an [tag]open-ended[/tag] [tag]commitment[/tag] in Iraq, and most Republicans are for one. As Matt Yglesias said, “[A] focus on shifting U.S. policy away from an open-ended commitment seems like a reasonably compelling baseline that at least everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman could be down for.” And as Kevin Drum added, “The key issue, after all, isn’t really setting some precise date for withdrawal redeployment, it’s making clear that an open-ended commitment is a dumb policy.”
Indeed, it is. Based on the rhetoric from congressional [tag]Republicans[/tag] lately, their policy — [tag]stay the course[/tag], [tag]wait and see[/tag] — could last [tag]indefinitely[/tag]. Think about the logic: we can’t set a [tag]deadline[/tag], we can’t establish a [tag]timeline[/tag]; we won’t rule out [tag]permanent[/tag] bases; and any kind of premature withdrawal is “cutting and running.” The question the GOP needs to answer is simple, “Is there any length of time that’s too long?”
They say three years isn’t long enough. Fine. What about five? Or 10? How long is too long? How many U.S. casualties are too many? How many hundreds of billions is too expensive? The Republican answer, apparently, is that no cost is too great and no time commitment is too long. We’re there and we’re not prepared to leave. If they concede that there is some kind of limit to our commitment, they open the door to Dems saying we’ve already reached that limit.
For Dems to make this an internal fight over a fixed deadline is foolish — the GOP line is a hanging curve over the middle of the plate.
Thankfully, Josh Marshall kindly offers the Dems a script.
“President Bush thinks we should stay in Iraq forever, as far as the eye can see. He’s said it himself. He says, ‘Getting out of Iraq is up to presidents who come after me.’ I don’t agree. That’s too long. I don’t know if we’ll be able to get our troops out of Iraq in 6 months or even a year. But I want to start working on getting them home as soon as I get into office. And staying in Iraq for at least three more years, like President Bush wants, is too long.
“My opponent is with President Bush on this. More of a blank check. I disagree.
“We’ve got too many challenges around the world to keep burning through money and our men and women in uniform just because President Bush can’t admit that his policies aren’t working.”
Almost by accident, the Dems have stumbled upon (tripped over?) the debate on Iraq they can win and that the GOP doesn’t want to fight: Republicans have no exit plan and see no end to the war on the horizon, while Dems believe we’ve waited long enough and we should get our troops out of the middle of a civil war.
Dems should embrace this debate with both arms. As a policy matter, the Republican policy is a dangerous sham. As a political matter, the public overwhelmingly agrees with us. Sure, Dems are divided on the details, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees — they see an open-ended, indefinite war; we see a mistake that it’s time to correct.