a conversation that needs to happen, but won’t
From today’s New York Times: Bush Vows Not to Negotiate on Iraq Timetable
A defiant President Bush vowed today not to negotiate with Congress about setting a date for withdrawing American troops from Iraq, and he said the American people would blame lawmakers if there is any delay in approving money for the war effort.
“Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely,” Mr. Bush said. “That’s not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible.”
I believe, I want to believe, that Mr. Bush believes he is doing what is best for our country by “staying the course” in Iraq, but sincerity and good intentions are not enough. By refusing to bend at all and by summarily dismissing legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq passed by both the House and the Senate, Mr. Bush is not merely defying the Democratically-controlled Congress, he is defying the intent of the Constitution. The Constitution intends a trilateral sharing of power, a system of checks and balances, so that one person, one office, even one branch of government will not act alone, unilaterally establishing national policy.
But this administration wants to pursue its war as it sees fit, without counsel, without oversight, without negotiation, without compromise. The bills passed by Congress and the bill which may eventually reach the president’s desk should provide, not an ultimatum, but a starting point for conversation, a conversation that could lead to a policy more closely reflecting the will of the people. But this administration has already decided by itself what is best for the people.
“If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil in Iraq, America will have lost its moral purpose in the world. And we will endanger our citizens, because if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here.”
We have already lost our moral purpose in the world. The invasion of Iraq four years ago was a preemptive strike; an act of war in response to a perceived threat, not to any provocation; quite simply an act of aggression, illegal and immoral. The United States and its allies invaded a sovereign nation without just cause, and the immorality of that act has only been compounded by the immense suffering of the Iraqi population.
We cannot unring that bell and the situation on the ground in Iraq today is complex and unpredictable. The daily violence despite — or because of — the presence of American troops is horrendous, and it is almost certain that the violence without the presence of American troops would be even worse. But as a moral issue, the war does not become any more moral by its elongation. The immoral war is still immoral, and the only way to redress that failing and to reclaim any moral redemption is to cease and desist … to leave Iraq.