TWO YEARS and counting after the start of the war in Iraq, it seems that partisans on both sides are more concerned with tarring their political opponents than proposing constructive solutions. Throughout this political brawl, the only clear losers have been the American and Iraqi peoples, who have been denied the benefit of an honest public debate about the course of continued American involvement.
While Republican leaders initially articulated their policy in Iraq as part of a grand vision for the spread of democracy, they have failed to set clear standards by which to judge the success of American policy in Iraq. While the ambiguity has allowedPresident Bush to evade responsibility from short-term setbacks such as the current deadlock in the adoption of a new Iraqi constitution, it has also obscured domestic debate about the long-term strategy for American involvement.
In place of a clearly articulated plan for the future of American policy in Iraq, Republican leaders have sought to differentiate themselves from their political opponents by asserting that Democrats are unconcerned about the war on terror. This political tactic has been on display in the numerous incidents in which the Bush administration has responded to criticism about the war in Iraq by questioning Democrats' commitment to fighting terrorism. One such incident was when White House spokesman Trent Duffy responded to criticism about the war by saying by saying that President Bush "can understand that people don't share his view that we must win the war on terror."Such statements do little to inform the American people about the situation in Iraq and they unnecessarily politicize a life and death issue.
While the ruling Republican leadership has failed pronounce a specific vision on their policy in Iraq, Democrats have been just as evasive in their vision for America's future in Iraq.Instead of presenting a clear alternative set of standards and goals for American operations in Iraq, the Democratic leadership has spoken of Iraqi policy largely in terms of the failures of the Bush administration. While this tone has dominated much of what Democrats have said about Iraq, one particulary prominent example was given by Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., who explained his vote against the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to secretary of state by saying, "My vote against this nominee is my statement that this administration's lies must stop now."
While it is important for Democrats to make the American people aware of the shortcomings of the Bush administration, they have nonetheless failed to offer clear-cut alternatives such as a proposed timetable for withdrawal, or differing strategies for American success in Iraq. By continuing to focus their comments around the existing policies of the Bush administration, they have failed to provoke a domestic debate that could stimulate the emergence of alternative visions for American involvement in Iraq.
Ultimately, both Democrats and Republicans must be held accountable for the politicization of American policy in Iraq. By making discussions about Iraqi policy into a referendum on the Bush administration, the two parties have brought short-run political passions into consideration on what should be a matter of rational non-partisan deliberation.
Because of this, American policy has become unresponsive to events in Iraq as political leaders are pressured to respond with the same partisan line regardless of the changing nature of events taking place overseas. In addition to this, the insertion of political calculation into deliberations of Iraqi policy has stunted the formation of a national consensus on important issues such as the goals of American policy in Iraq and the conditions for withdrawal of American troops.
With this in mind, the onus is on American political leaders to turn down the partisan attacks and more clearly articulate a vision for the future. Hopefully, this will begin with President Bush laying out clear-cut standards for success and conditions for withdrawal of American soldiers that is based on the progress of events in Iraq. Moreover, Democrats should respond by focusing their criticism on the Bush administration's current policies in Iraq, rather than continuing to dwell on the decision to go to war itself. Furthermore, Democrats should couple this criticism with an alternative vision for the future of American involvement in Iraq.
If leaders from both parties can work past the current environment of partisan confrontation, it will be possible to conduct a political debate that gives the American people a clear set of choices for the future of American involvement in Iraq. If they fail in this endeavor, the situation on the ground in Iraq will become increasingly divergent from the image of the war presented to the American public. Such a situation would be a disaster for the people of America and Iraq.
Adam Keith is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at akeith@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
