Ending the Iraqi Deadlock and How the Democrats Should BehaveMike Rappaport

The New York Times has a piece on a Shiite official calling for the replacement of Ibrahim al-Jaafari as the Shiite candidate for prime minister.  It seems clear that replacing him is extremely important.  Not only would it allow a government to be formed, but it would also isolate  Moktada al-Sadr.

The piece also discusses Democratic Senator Carl Levin's statement to the Iraqis that he favors linking continuation of US troops to Iraqi political progress.  There are both benefits and disadvantages to this policy, but unlike the proposals of so many other Democrats, it seems designed to promote success in Iraq and makes a certain amount of sense.  Levin's actions show you what it might be like if the Democrats had not failed so badly in this area -- if they did not merely seek both to oppose Bush whenever possible and to pursue a policy likely to lead to failure; we might have an Iraqi policy that was more likely to succeed.  Instead, we have one where the Administration must resist Democratic proposals for failure in Iraqi, and where the Administration must rely entirely on its own ideas.

Comments

[David Gaw]

But wouldn't Levin's plan create a powerful incentive for those who oppose political progress to dig in their hells and wait for US troops to withdraw, so they can enjoy even greater latitute in opposing progress with violence?