Developments in Iraq and at Home

Violence in Iraq has not returned to the level that followed the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra last week, but recent developments are still troubling. In some Sunni dominated cities, Shiites are being told to leave or face death:

Salim Rashid, 34, a Shiite laborer in an overwhelmingly Sunni Arab village 20 miles north of Baghdad, received his eviction notice Friday from a man at the door with a rocket launcher.

"It's 6 p.m.," Rashid recounted the masked man saying then, as retaliatory violence between Shiites and Sunnis exploded across wide swaths of central Iraq. "We want you out of here by 8 p.m. tomorrow. If we find you here, we will kill you."

It's impossible to say how pervasive this is, but this man's "eviction" is no isolated event:

At least 58 dislodged Shiite families have come to Shoula since late last week, said Raad al-Husseini, a cleric who is helping the families settle in. Husseini did not know the total number of displaced people in Shoula, but Rashid, the laborer, said about 200 had left his town.

And as the NY Times reports, even towns and neighborhoods that felt immune to conflict were unable to avoid the violence that followed the bombing:

Here in the mixed neighborhood of Zayuna, Sunnis, Shiites and Christians live side by side, and residents always felt immune to sectarian violence. So when it exploded last Thursday, so did many dearly held beliefs.

Residents of a neighborhood that genuinely desire peace with each other could not escape outside forces of chaos and conflict:

The descent into violence in Zayuna, an affluent area of manicured hedges and stores that sell Swatches in central Baghdad, did not pit neighbors against neighbors. Armed gangs, it seemed, were mostly from other areas. But the neighborhood was transformed anyway; its Sunni Arab residents have been left deeply afraid, and some of its Shiite residents ashamed.

As you can imagine, both situations are the direct result of a lack of security for ordinary Iraqis. In parts of Iraq the government is without effective control, or is compromised or complicit in the acts of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. Reading this articles, one almost beings to wonder exactly where the 130,000 American troops are. The answer is that they are patrolling, defending against and attacking the insurgents, but there's simply not enough of them or Iraqi security forces to guarantee the safety and peace of average Iraqis, even of those who have no wish to attack fellow Iraqis.

And here at home, the steady drumbeat of bad news is taking it's toll on President Bush in general, and the unity of the GOP in particular. You've read about Bush's record low approval ratings, and how Democrats may finally be gaining the upper-hand on national security issues. Apparently Bush's allies in Congress are reading the papers too, and deciding that a little distance might be a good thing right now:

The signs of GOP discontent have been building in the past few months. Dissident Republicans in Congress forced Bush to sign a measure banning torture of detainees despite his initial veto threat, blocked renewal of the USA Patriot Act until their civil liberties concerns were addressed and pressured the White House into accepting legislation on its secret eavesdropping program. By the time the port deal came to light, the uprising was no longer limited to dissidents.

The breakdown of the Republican consensus on national security both reflects and exacerbates Bush's political weakness heading toward the midterm elections, according to party strategists. Even as Republicans abandoned him last year on domestic issues such as Social Security, Hurricane Katrina relief and Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, they had largely stuck by him on terrorism and other security issues.

But as polls indicate that more and more Americans disapprove of Bush's approach on national security, even that formidable strength appears to be dissipating. Obviously, Bush weakening on his primary strength is a good thing for Democrats. But I would argue that outside of partisan politics this is a good development. For too long Republicans in Congress have been willing to shelve not only their personal concerns, but their legitimate oversight role over the executive, so as to ride Bush's coat tails to victory in elections. Well, the game is up. They've let Bush have his way for so long that they find themselves in the most uncomfortable position of having to abandon Bush on key national security issues and strike out on their own. Will it do them any good in November? I seriously doubt it. They've made GOP foreign policy synonymous with Bush's foreign policy, and now it's too late to jump off the band wagon they road into office on. But in the long run it may be a good development for Congress, and a positive for us old-fashioned types who still believe that Congress should act as a check against excessive executive power.