Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > November > 14
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
No timetable on Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If avoiding a commitment to withdraw prematurely from Iraq was the price President Bush had to pay for his party’s control of Congress, so be it The loss of the Senate hurts because of the possibility that a vacancy could occur on the U. S. Supreme Court. But otherwise, the harm is that the President may feel hamstrung in dealing with Iraq, Iran and the war on terrorism.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is right to be be concerned that last week’s elections could weaken or soften the U.S. negotiating position on Iran’s nuclear program. The reality is, election or not, the world and especially Israel cannot live with an adversary armed with nuclear weapons that’s determined “ultimately [to] wipe Israel off the map.” Said Olmert in understatement, “If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would be terribly destabilizing.” Bush agrees, of course, and is urging the world to isolate Iran until it abandons its nuclear ambitions.
The greater concern at the moment, however, is U.S. policy on Iraq. U.S. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who will be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee when Democrats take over in January advocates withdrawal starting in 4-6 months. He believes “we’re getting deeper and deeper into a hole in Iraq.”
There’s certainly a limit as to how far Bush can press the war and the goal of getting Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Terrorists and the world read election results, too. The U.S. presidential election is two years away. Settle in. Mayhem and delay will be the strategy of terrorists and Iran, too.
Regardless of the rhetoric from Levin and others, Bush should not declare or set a timetable for withdrawal. If the new Congress objects, it has the power of the purse to effect its will — and an election in two years to sell its plan to the American people.
Permalink | Comments (132) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
