Monday, June 25, 2007

White House to Offer Iraq Decentralization Plan to Congress?

The L.A. Times is reporting the beginning of an internal review of Iraq policy at the White House aimed at crafting some sort of agreement both Bush and Congress can live with, but offers little details.

The Bush administration has begun exploring ways of offering Congress a compromise deal on Iraq policy to avert bruising battles in coming months, U.S. officials said.

With public support of the war dropping, President Bush has authorized an internal policy review to find a plan that could satisfy opponents without sacrificing his top goals, the officials said.

The president and senior officials "realize they can't keep fighting this over and over," said one administration official, who along with others declined to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly or because decisions were pending.

The Republican White House has not opened formal negotiations with the Democratic-controlled Congress. But some senior administration officials — including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad — have been quietly talking with lawmakers about how to adjust policy in the months ahead. Among other ideas, they have discussed whether the United States should advocate a sharply decentralized Iraq, a notion that has seen a resurgence on Capitol Hill.
Basically, I'll believe it when I see it. Bush has not signaled he supports a drawdown of forces and has opposed decentralization in the past. A compromise seems like a long-shot to me.

Bush has said he will not accept any American pullback that would imperil Iraq. Democrats are feeling growing pressure from their antiwar base for troop withdrawals, and could sacrifice a crucial 2008 campaign issue if they agreed to a deal with the White House.

At the same time, a deal could be tempting to lawmakers who see it as a way out of a war that has damaged Congress' reputation as well as the president's. Though Democrats would be reluctant to let Bush off the hook, many "would have a hard time turning down a proposal that offers a real way out," said a Senate Democratic aide.

White House officials have not indicated how a compromise might look. Administration officials and some Democrats favor shifting U.S. forces to a support role: fighting insurgents, training Iraqi forces and providing other backup.

Many Democrats want such a shift in the next few months, but Bush has said Iraq must become more stable first. In a news conference last month, Bush said he "would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in time."

Administration officials have signaled that there is a spectrum of views within the government. Some top officials, including Gates, have appeared less enthusiastic about the current "surge" of 30,000 troops.
The logic make sense, but again, I'll believe it when I see it. Or rather, when I see Republicans in Congress really opposing the President on this in September or not.

That idea — what proponents of decentralization call a "federal system of government" — is favored by an unusually broad bipartisan group of senators. They were pulled together this month by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a presidential candidate, to cosponsor a nonbinding resolution supporting the federalism plan.

And the administration stance may be easing. On a trip to Iraq about a week ago, Gates openly reflected that greater emphasis outside Baghdad might prove more effective. "Perhaps we have gotten too focused on the central government, and not enough on the provinces and on the tribes and what is happening in those areas," Gates told reporters.

And U.N. Ambassador Khalilzad, who was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq until April, has discussed the federalism plan with Biden and Biden's fellow sponsor and presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), lawmakers said.

...The idea is gaining popularity on Capitol Hill.

Joining Biden is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), one of the strongest proponents of a deadline for withdrawing most U.S. combat troops. Also cosponsoring the measure are three Republicans, including two conservatives not usually seen as Democrats' allies on the war: Brownback and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Although Hutchison has spoken since last year about creating semiautonomous regions in Iraq, she has generally been one of the administration's most loyal allies on Capitol Hill.
The idea does seem to have some bipartisan support, but is it a good one?

The Biden resolution — which does not address troop levels — has not been endorsed by the Senate Democratic leadership, which remains focused on the upcoming troop withdrawal votes.

A number of influential lawmakers also have expressed concerns that a U.S. plan to divide the country could increase sectarian strife and create the impression that the United States is imposing its will on the Iraqis.

"The Iraqis have got to get their act together, work out their political differences. We've got to pressure them to do it. But they have to make the decision as to what is the best system for them, what degree of federalism, what those details are," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.). "Whether or not it is workable … is up to the Iraqis to decide."

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican seen as key to any bipartisan Iraq legislation, also remains wary. "It's essentially giving federal approval to ethnic cleansing," Collins said. "On the other hand, nothing seems to be working.

"The Bush administration officials said they would like to change the terms of the congressional debate, shifting discussion from whether U.S. troops should leave to how the United States can help address the practical problems of holding the country together.

But many in Congress believe any discussions would have to consider all possible approaches.

"At this point, I think every option has to be on the table," Collins said, "including a significant but gradual withdrawal of our forces."
My general feeling is that partitioning Iraq is probably what will ultimately happen anyway, but how do you make it happen? One thing's for sure, whether it becomes the official position of the U.S. government or not, Democrats and smart Republicans still must force this administration to begin redeploying our forces and changing their mission in Iraq.


Xanthippas said...

I agree that a partition is inevitable, but unfortunately I think we're at a state where everyone in Iraq wants the partition to be in their best interests, which means more fighting until somebody is persuaded they can't get what they want. So I don't think any efforts we make to partition Iraq will be either a) effective or b) accepted by the Iraqi people.

As for a "compromise"...if Bush wants a "stable" Iraq before he's willing to compromise, then that's no compromise at all as it'll never happen.

I do like how the LA Times article points out that Democrats would sacrifice a campaign issue with a non-deal "deal" with the President; this is truth, and I'm a little tired of those who refuse to see that the American people will not turn out in droves for a party that makes "deals" with the President that get nothing done.

Also, exactly how is "fighting insurgents" a "support role"? Is that a typo? Isn't that what we're doing now?

adam said...

Well, if it was a deal that really would end the war in its current form, than I think Dems should go along with it, regardless of how it might hurt politically.

Yeah, I think they might "fighting terrorists."