The Buffalo News editorial board advocates putting pressure on the Iraqis to take the responsibility for their country's future.
. . . but it is high time for the United States to talk to other nations in the region about ending this war, and for increased pressure on the Iraqi government to meet fully its own responsibility for fair governance and Iraqi-enforced state security. If that takes congressional pressure on the White House, so be it.
But what form would that pressure take? A schedule for withdrawal? That would put us right back where the Democrats stood, oh I don't know, a month ago. It was a stand they abandoned (correctly) because it was obvious that those fighting against us would simply lie low until we left.
Should we threaten economic sanctions? That would make a bad situation worse. Or how about . . . Well, what's left? Diplomatic pressure from the French?
Look, the Iraqis already have all the incentive they need to clean up their act. The Democrats are well-known around the Middle East to control Congress now and their noises about becoming co-managers of the war have been heard. It's also common knowledge in Baghdad that a presidential election is already underway here and that there's a 50/50 chance that a Democrat will win.
The Iraqis know they're under the gun and they're motivated. Whether they're able is another question and one we can't answer yet.
[UPDATE:] And here's what has to be one of the weakest and most unfortunate analogies I've read in a long time.
The argument made by Bush partisans that limiting the war equates to a lack of support for our troops is similar to the argument made by the drunken brother-in-law that cutting off his liquor supply means you don’t love him.
Ouch! Comparing American troops to a drunken brother-in-law, even if the next sentence does attempt (poorly) to explain it, doesn't strike me as a particularly powerful argument. It has the distinct ring of something John Kerry might say and then claim was a joke.
