MB Civic

Editorial  |  Saturday, June 17, 2006; A18  |  The Washington Post

THE HOUSE and Senate both debated the Iraq war this week, and that’s a good thing. The stakes in Iraq are immense, and Congress should have involved itself more from the beginning. When Democrats complain of insufficient congressional oversight of administration policies in the war, they are absolutely right.

True, the tone and substance of the debates at times were disappointing. Many Republicans, looking to turn a campaign liability into a weapon, overstated the progress in Iraq, simplistically equated the conflict there with the struggle against al-Qaeda and offensively accused any doubting Democrats of being soft on terrorism. Many Democrats, looking to exploit bad news without appearing to rejoice in it, demagogued about presidential “lies,” obtusely denied any relationship between Iraq and the war on terrorism and called for troop withdrawal without honestly facing the consequences of such a move.

All that may be predictable in an election year, but there is a deeper reason for the unsatisfying nature of the debate: the absence of superior alternatives to the admittedly perilous present course. “The position that our troops should stay longer in Iraq makes us all uncomfortable,” said Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.). “But an alternative, an immediate withdrawal, concedes that Iraq will fall into chaos, because there is no way that the Iraqi security forces could stand alone yet.”

What’s encouraging is the number of legislators of both parties willing to acknowledge such truths in the face of electoral risks: Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), for example, who delivered an eloquent explanation of the stakes despite growing antiwar sentiment in her district, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who earlier this week endured boos from liberal activists rather than give in to set-a-date pressure. Other Democratic senators, such as Jack Reed (R.I.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), continue to offer constructive criticism to an administration that has been far too resistant to such help. Only six senators ultimately supported a bring-the-troops-home proposal authored by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and then introduced, for cynical reasons, by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The truth is that U.S. generals in Iraq and the new democratic Iraqi government share with politicians here a desire for U.S. troops gradually to diminish their presence. They share, too, an understanding of what needs to be done for that to happen: continued training of Iraqi soldiers and police; disarming of sectarian militias; better provision of electricity and other daily necessities, and shaping the political structure to guarantee every region a fair share of oil revenue. Given the dire circumstances in Iraq today, if progress isn’t made on those fronts, there may be little that U.S. troops will be able to contribute.

If progress does take place, though, it will be fragile. The succeeding six months will be crucial, too, and so will the six months after that. U.S. troops will still be needed, if in lower numbers and altered roles. That’s why it remains prudent to focus on a goal and not a timetable.