The Quagmire Over The Iraq War Quagmire

Both the Republican and Democratic senators have gaping logic shortcomings in their approach to the Iraq War quagmire. But unfortunately pure politics has moltivated the Republican senators to kill the debate on a nonbinding resolution that reflects the conscience of the Senate on this matter.

And the vote this week to quash any debate on a nonbinding resolution has put some Republican senators like Gordon Smith of Oregon, on both sides of the Iraq War issue. On one hand, he publicly has made strong statements of moral conscience against the war. On the other hand, he's playing politics and will not even allow a vote on any nonbinding resolution against the troop escalation, because he's worried it may lay some blame for the war at Bush's feet. Well, the news is that the public overwelmingly blames Bush for this war, and any political damage was reflected back in November when voters tossed out many Republicans. About all that Senator Smith is doing is setting a messy re-election issue for his November 2008 re-election bid to have to answer for to the voters. It's time to come down on one side or the other, not both sides for this senator.

On the other hand, Democrats in the Senate seem to be sure that this is some sort of a war escalation. But it appears that the troop surge in Baghdad has a specific purpose to set up checkpoints or to arrange house-to-house searches for illegal arms or terrorist activity. Is this really a war, or just a newer wise use of policing. This should be somewhat apparent that Baghdad needs someone to police the area and prevent all of the rampant car bombings, violence and loss of life. If the surge of US. forces saves lives by reducing the violence, then where has been all the harm?

The UN runs 15 current peacekeeping missions throughout the world including in dangerous Lebanon with more than 80,000 peacekeepers currently deployed in world troublespots. The UN forces suffer losses, yet there is no big debate for the UN to pull out of areas like in the U.S. debate about Iraq. Since the U.S. currently has forces in Iraq, for good or bad, then why shouldn't they police the area? Already more than 11,000 of the U.S. forces are police by trade when not acting in the U.S. Army Reserves. Instead of simply running from the quagmire and violence in Iraq, the Senate needs to seriously consider who should be in charge of policing and peacekeeping in Iraq. Maybe a multinational force from the region, or even UN forces if the U.S. seriously wants out. But so far the debate hasn't matured to this level yet.

I'm very doubtful that the new Bush security plan for Iraq will work. But the violence is so bad that some new form of policing the area needs to be done by someone other than the Iraqis for at least some time until the role of insugents or militia groups is reduced by a political settlement of some sort. Again, I'm doubtful of this. But then again the UN is currently involved as peace broker and police force in 15 world troublespots including Cyprus since 1964.

Someone has to police Iraq. This is the key to American troops eventually leaving Iraq in great numbers. Why the debate in the Senate is not reflecting this and instead has become a political quagmire itself is a real disappointment.