The Nation: Republican vs. Republican on Iraq

[babylonsister]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=192085

Republican vs. Republican on Iraq
Ari Berman


On Monday a Washington Post headline read: "GOP's Base Helps Keep Unity on Iraq." By Thursday, following President Bush's veto of a Democratic war funding bill, the long-suppressed GOP divide on the war was spilling out into the open.

Most Republicans still oppose setting a timetable for withdrawal and only four in the Congress voted for the Democratic proposal. But now they are split on the question of "benchmarks"--whether to require Iraqis to meet certain political goals in order to keep receiving US military support.

"Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports," said Senator Susan Collins of Maine told the Los Angeles Times. "Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don't see that as viable."

Still other Republican supporters of the surge, like Senator Lindsey Graham, are trying to have it both ways. According to the Washington Post, Graham "said he would support adding benchmarks, but with no repercussions should Iraqis fall short."

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having benchmarks in the first place? Without consequences what's the incentive for the militia-plagued, secterian-driven Iraqi government to hammer out a compromise? And while we're at it, isn't it time for US politicians to stop blaming Iraqis for the mess in Iraq? After all, it was the Bush Administration's war of choice that made a bad situation even worse.

[gratuitous]

1. Graham's head is about to spin off

I just don't see how these cretins can hold such ridiculous thoughts in their silly little heads. "We don't want to keep writing blank checks, but we don't want to not keep writing blank checks." Reminds me of that easy credit commercial from a couple of months ago. The guy, smilingly, shows off his nice house, big car, shiny possessions, and then asks, "How can I afford this? I'm in debt up to my eyeballs. Somebody help me."

We're trying to help you, Mr. Graham. The problem right now seems to be that you don't want to help yourself. You and your ideological soulmates in the Republican party don't tolerate this kind of behavior from many of your constituents who can't help themselves; why do you think it's acceptable for you to be so needy and helpless, and yet refuse help that's proffered?

[TwilightGardener]

2. Lady Lindsey Graham--"I want benchmarks that carry absolutely no consequences."

[Recursion]

3. Admittedly, benchmarks are a stupid idea

Say the Iraqis meet the benchmarks. What does that mean? Supposedly, as they stand up we stand down, so the benchmarks mean we would start withdrawing troops.

Say the Iraqis don't meet the benchmarks. What does that mean? Supposedly, that we no longer have an honest and effective "partner" in our puppet regime, and we have political cover to start withdrawing troops.

Benchmarks mean withdrawal and "Iraqization" of the war whichever way they go. This worries me because we don't want the endgame here to play out like Vietnam. We need to find a way to get all of our troops and all the Iraqis whose death warrants we signed by hiring them out of there. Withdrawal is a given now; it's only a question of how. Benchmarks are a way of ducking that question.