National Review’s Byron York isn’t exactly a “maverick” when it comes to bucking the traditional GOP line on issues like the war. It’s exactly why I was encouraged to see his latest missive about the Dems’ war policy.
It’s an article of faith in Republican circles that Congress should not impose deadlines on the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. But should deadlines be off limits in the Iraq debate? Maybe at this point, a deadline for the Iraqi government wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Yes, it’s true that a deadline would simply tell the enemy how long he has to wait before the U.S. leaves. But it would have the same effect on the Iraqi government, too, and that might be a good thing. Every instance in which there has been significant progress in Iraq — the writing of a constitution, election of a legislature, etc. — has come as a result of the U.S. pushing the Iraqis to meet a deadline. Without a deadline, they mess around, and mess around some more, and act as if they have all the time in the world. And even with a deadline, they are likely to miss it and delay until the last minute before getting anything done.
So maybe it’s time for a deadline.
What do you know; that’s exactly what some of us on the left have been saying for a year.
Matthew Yglesias sees some significance in York’s sudden reasonableness: “At long last some of the mainstream right is getting tired of this morass.”
I think that’s certainly possible, and I’m curious to see the schism expand between the “mainstream” right and the “rabid” right. Byron York and (hopefully) a few others are starting to realize that perhaps the Dems’ arguments in support of deadlines aren’t so radical after all. The rest of the right will, however, continue to insist that deadlines, benchmarks, and timelines are inherently evil, advocated only by terrorist-loving, America-hating traitors who comprise the nation’s fifth column.
More important, of course, is where Republican lawmakers fall on this continuum — mainstream vs. rabid. They don’t all have to find some semblance of reason, of course, just enough to help Dems change the government’s policy.
As for the broader point, Kevin Drum has an important piece noting the significance of the current conditions in Iraq.
Needless to say, the situation in Iraq after four years of bungling is pretty close to hopeless, but given that reality it’s also true that the current state of affairs is about as good as things could plausibly get. Consider:
* We have five more battalions either in Baghdad or on their way.
* We have a commanding general in Iraq who (we’re told) knows how to use them.
* We have a Democratic Congress making extremely credible threats to the Iraqi leadership that they need to make progress ASAP or else troops are likely to start coming home whether George Bush likes it or not. […]
The fact remains that five battalions is the best we can do, Petraeus is probably the best general available for this job, and congressional threats really are providing incentives to Iraqi leaders to resolve their differences. This is why I suspect that September might really be September.
So do I. For all the talk about the need for a Plan B, war supporters seem reluctant to acknowledge that they’re playing their last chip right now. The current policy is a) exactly what they said they want; and b) exactly what they said would work. There is nothing else. There are no secret backup plans on the president’s desk. They wanted this general, with these battalions, with these conditions. If the plan fails, they’ve failed.
Congressional Republicans have never ceased to amaze me in their capacity for self-delusion, but they really have reached the end of the road here. As many as 60 House Republicans opposed the surge policy when it was announced, but they’ve held their tongue since.
How much longer can that possibly continue?