Playing politics with Iraq

There is no other reason for the latest resolution that Republican lawmakers have pushed to a vote in the House. It says:

Setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq.

Things like this are maddening on a number of levels. First, this resolution is clearly a political ambush and nothing more. Anyone who votes against the amendment will see their face featured in ads next year with the claim that "politician 'A' voted against" and then edit all the words from "Setting" all the way to and including "with."

Next, the wording is ultimately ambiguous at best. What, exactly, is an "artificial timetable?" Wouldn't that involve any goals set by man, which would encompass just about every reason imaginable short of tying withdrawal to earthquakes or meteor showers?

What if an immediate termination of deployment was followed by bringing the troops back to America? Under the wording of the resolution, that's actually viewed as a good thing to do.

And of course, and most important to the whole debate, what and who gets to determine "victory?"

Finally, there are generals and others on the ground in Iraq who feel we need to do exactly what this resolution says is wrong. 2/3rds of Iraqis are actually for exactly what this resolution opposes. And it seems to oppose the will of the Bush administration as reported only two weeks prior:

President Bush set the stage for a major policy shift on Iraq yesterday by pinning responsibility for expected troop withdrawals on U.S. field commanders.

"It's their recommendation," Bush said of the advice he will seek from officers on the ground.

"If they tell me that the Iraqis are ready to take more and more responsibility and that we'll be able to bring some Americans home, I will do that," Bush said on a tour of the Mexican border in El Paso, Tex.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the recommendation would likely be positive.

"In 2006, the expectation is the conditions will be changed on the ground, and that conditions will permit us to be able to reduce our presence," McClellan said.

Bush himself says it's up to the field commanders in Iraq as to when the withdraw should begin (an artificial timetable), and not politicians in Congress thousands of miles away. Clearly House Republicans do not care about the wishes of the President. And we all know what it means to undermine the President during a time of war, right?

There is nothing truthful about this resolution, either. The premise put forth is not logically conclusive. There is no way to know if this course will lead to "victory" or simply result in a drawn out standstill. We all want to see a victory in Iraq. There is disagreement on how best to attain that victory. This vote essentially stifles that debate.