Miami Herald...

Posted on Mon, Nov. 21, 2005


Senate gets back into Iraq debate

OUR OPINION:
TURNABOUT IS SENSIBLE CHANGE FOR AWOL CONGRESS

Ater being AWOL for more than two years, the Senate has finally found the gumption to get back into the Iraqi debate. What the Senate did last week was merely demand that the Bush administration provide progress reports on the war every three months. This may not seem like a lot, but in political terms it signals that, with an election year coming up, the Senate is acutely aware of the dwindling public support for the war and wants to know whether the administration has an exit strategy. This is a sensible and refreshing change for this rubber-stamp Congress.

Public ahead of leaders

''I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about public perception of how the war is going in terms of '06 elections,'' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a strong administration supporter. The fact that the war is not popular does not by itself mean the war is wrong, but in this case the public has been far ahead of its leaders in Washington in sensing that ''stay the course'' is a slogan and not a strategy.

The Senate was right to vote against a Democratic demand for a timetable for withdrawal. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said, ''That's a gun pointed to our heads, not theirs.'' But it's perfectly legitimate for the Senate to demand that the administration tell the American people where it's going in Iraq, and to put the Iraqis on notice that they have to do more of the heavy lifting.

It also forces the administration to look forward. Given the lack of attractive options in Iraq, this is much harder than simply lashing out at critics of the war effort, as President Bush and Vice President Cheney have done, beginning with the president's Veterans Day speech.

The president suggested that critics are being irresponsible and hurting the war effort, but he was rebuked by a member of his own party, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, with these words: ''To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic.'' America, he said, owes its solders ''a policy worthy of their sacrifices.'' That is the challenge for the administration, and it serves the country far better to concentrate on the future of Iraq and how it can become a viable democracy than to question the patriotism of honest critics.

Stable government

Among the many missing pieces of the puzzle is a regional-security framework that can support the aims of U.S. policy and of Iraqi moderates who want a peaceful and stable government. Sen. Hagel offered a useful suggestion in calling for a regional conference to promote Iraq's democratic objectives. Surely the other countries in the region realize that if Iraq becomes a haven for terrorists or religious fanatics, their own futures are threatened, and that helping Iraq is in their own self-interest.