September 17, 2007

Memo to Capitol Hill Republicans: Iraq Is Not About You

Never mind the Democrats. They’ve long been a lost cause.

Do Capitol Hill Republicans understand why we are in Iraq? And do they understand that the objective there is not to leave?

A September 14 report by Time magazine’s Massimo Calabresi (not related, although I could do worse than to name a kid Massimo) indicates that they view the conflict through the usual prism of domestic politics. And that is not good.

Mr. Calabresi’s predictably unnamed sources were upset that President Bush decided to address the nation in prime time on Thursday. Bush used the address to endorse the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus and to discuss some of his longer-term vision for Iraq.

His supposed allies on the Hill were not pleased, as cousin Massimo reports:

Some key Hill Republicans, in fact, were upset that he returned front and center on the issue at a time when the White House had so carefully ceded the selling of the surge to Petraeus and Crocker. "Why would he threaten the momentum we have?" says one frustrated Capitol Hill Republican strategist with ties to the GOP leadership. "You have an unpopular President going onto prime time television, interrupting Americans' TV programs, to remind them of why they don't like him."

Good grief.

First of all, whatever dunderhead said this might need to have it explained to him that the “momentum” that matters is that of the troops working to secure Iraq, not to improve Republican poll numbers. Do congressional Republicans know that the objective of winning the war is not to help their political fortunes? When they controlled Congress, they saw no reason to help their own political fortunes by fixing Social Security, getting spending under control, overhauling the tax code . . . maybe they were just waiting for some good war news to take care of it for them.

Second, whether people “like him” or not, George W. Bush is the commander in chief, and if there is important news to announce about the war, he is the one who should announce it. It is his job. If it annoys people because they were trying to watch “My Name is Earl,” too freaking bad. People need to get a grip about what really matters. But according to this pearl of wisdom from Mr. Calabresi’s piece, Republicans on the Hill don’t think so:

Republicans in Congress who were finally breathing a sigh of relief after months of bludgeoning on Iraq felt Bush was risking the progress he had made with those closely following the war by thrusting it in the faces of those who may not be paying attention.

Not paying attention? Good! Just sit there and watch sitcoms. Because if you pay attention, you might get mad at our side. And whatever you do, don’t look at the president! He’s not popular!

But the part that bothered Calabresi’s sources the most was this:

It didn't help that Bush said American forces would be on the ground in Iraq, as part of an "enduring relationship," well past the end of his term in office.

Didn’t help what? Keeping troops in Iraq, for a very, very long time, is what the U.S. needs to do to protect its global strategic interests. We are trying to create an ally in the heart of the Middle East that will support our efforts to eradicate radical Islamic terrorism. We’re not going to accomplish that by pulling up stakes – not before the 2008 election, not before the 2012 election, not ever.

What bothered the Hill Republicans about the “enduring relationship” comment?  Are they afraid the voters are craving a complete pullout, and they don’t like the president telling them it’s not going to happen?

Despite the headlines of the past week trumpeting the imminence of troop withdrawals – as if this represents a grand achievement – it is not America’s objective in Iraq to get out. The objective is to establish a stable, secure, democratic ally. Once we do, it will be in our interests to have a permanent military presence there, just as we do in many other nations with which we are allied.

We are never leaving Iraq. It wouldn’t be good for us if we did. At least one Republican in Washington embraces his duty to exercise leadership and tell the American people this. If the ones in Congress are too afraid to do the same, they don’t deserve the benefit of any momentum.