After the election: What's next?
11.09.2006
And so, the baton is passed. The Democrats have taken control of the House and are poised to take the Senate as well, empowering Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid with majority leader status. All of the things I've said about Reid aside, I am optimistic that both he and his counterparts can morph from 'election mode' and actually work with the President to try and solve problems. The Iraq war is at the head of the list, but also we have immigration, economic issues, and stem cell research. What I am most confident in is that the Democrats will be a breath of fresh air for those of us who do not want to handicap scientific research to protect a mass of cells that, in a very different situation, could become a human being. Immigration legislation will also get done, but at what consequence to public opinion? Americans already have voiced their displeasure for illegal immigrants and President Bush's worker program, but with a few tweaks, the bill could work if it is in fact enforced. And, of course, the Iraq issue looms larger than life over us all. I believe the tone will change among Democrats, now that they've won the election, to a more pragmatic "solving problems" orientation, rather than the "bring the troops home now" rhetoric we've heard from some. The American people have given Democrats a great opportunity, and if they blow it, it may well be 12 more years before they ever see power again.
I'm no expert on war, but I believe that a more aggressive approach in Iraq could not only make our troops safer, but also bring them home more quickly. Instead of acting as policemen, our troops need to do what they do best, and that's root out terrorists in near-constant operations throughout the country, so that no would-be terrorists ever have a safe haven for any period of time. But the bigger problem may in fact be the elected Iraqi government, whose President is undermining our abilities to be effective, and may even be encouraging a civil war. For one, he ended the curfew and ordered American checkpoints to be withdrawn from some hot-spots, which have allowed Shiite death squads free reign once more. He has also refused to disarm or even challenge the authority of people like Al-Sadr, who commands an armed militia behind many of the attacks against Sunni Muslims. The President of Iraq's motive behind these moves are fairly obvious in that he doesn't want to be seen as pro-Sunni, or pro-American, but it is more ridiculous that he isn't able to see the bigger picture and endure a hit in public opinion for the sake of the order of his country. For Iraq to truly be safe, we have to start with the terrorists, and then we go on to Al-Sadr's militia, which seems to prefer a civil war over national unity. I believe most Iraqis want to live peacefully and free, but this is impossible as long as terrorists are blowing themselves up in busy marketplaces, and as long as armed men affiliated with independent militias undermine the authority of the Iraqi government. Once we accomplish these two objectives, and once we engage the enemy in offensive rather than defensive action, we could begin to see order returned to Iraq, and then the people can begin enjoying the freedoms they've voted for in relatively recent elections. Afterwards, troop withdrawal can begin.
I am optimistic that Rumsfeld's replacement will bring a fresh mind to the Iraq debate, and perhaps institute a more aggressive and effective approach in restoring order to an ailing Iraq. This experiment may well be the pride or the embarrassment of America for years to come, and I hope all of us would aim for it to be the former rather than the latter.
posted by Henry Emerson @ 10:39 AM,
