Congress takes a stand on Iraq

JUST A YEAR ago, President Bush pointed to Tal Afar, a town in northwestern Iraq, as an example of progress. Once a bastion of the insurgency, the area was cleared without a fight by US and Iraqi troops in late 2005, leading Bush to say that the success gave him "confidence in our strategy."

Yesterday , however, Shi'ite gunmen methodically scoured Sunni neighborhoods of Tal Afar, executing some 45 to 70 people. Some Sunnis said Iraq Army units had done little to prevent the rampage. The attacks were seen as a response to bombings two days earlier that killed at least 80 people, mostly Shi'ites, in two markets.

A few hours before Wednesday's killings, the US Senate voted to support a pullout of troops from Iraq by the end of next March. Last Friday, the House voted to require the withdrawal of most combat troops by September 2008.

Bush called the House vote a "political statement" and his spokeswoman said the congressional timetables amounted to "mandating failure." She said Bush would veto any bill with a withdrawal date.

It is certainly true that the votes are an extraordinary challenge to a president carrying out a war on foreign soil. But what is more historic than the action itself is the accumulation of misguided strategies and bungled efforts on the ground -- all defended obstinately by Bush -- that led Congress to it.

The mid term elections last November were an undeniable vote of no confidence in Bush's war, and public support, by most measures, has only continued to sink. The recent House and Senate votes merely reflected this reality. Stubbornly resisting solid advice from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and others, Bush has become increasingly isolated.

Now he and the Republicans who are stuck with his policies argue that the timing is wrong -- that the insertion of more troops, especially in Baghdad, should be given a chance to work, and that a timetable for withdrawal would only give the insurgents a reason to lie low temporarily.

But each passing week strengthens the argument that Iraqis have little incentive to do the hard work and make the hard bargains necessary to govern themselves as long as the United States is willing to provide security indefinitely.

It is a terrible predicament that Bush has created for himself and both countries. Yes, there is a danger the situation could deteriorate badly if US troops leave, but it could be worse if they stay.

The insurgents, meanwhile, are proving their flexibility once again. Fatal attacks were mounted in at least eight cities yesterday, and the use of chlorine gas truck bombs has been growing. In Baghdad, violence has declined overall, but there has been an uptick in rocket and mortar attacks in the Green Zone. As Congress saw, there is little reason for confidence in US strategy.