While Democrats on Capitol Hill are denouncing President Bush for sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, both parties are skirting the question of what comes next.
By the administration's own description, the troop surge is temporary. Yet with a handful of exceptions, few politicians are discussing an endgame, even as national security experts warn that Washington must begin laying the diplomatic and military groundwork for the next phase if U.S. options narrow.
Much of the congressional debate has consisted of maneuvering to blame the other party for losing Iraq. House Democrats passed a nonbinding resolution opposing but not stopping the troop increase. Republicans blocked the resolution in the Senate, blaming Democrats for undermining the troops and emboldening the enemy.
Discussing anything beyond the surge is "fraught with danger for Republicans and Democrats, because few people want to be exposed to the charge two years down the road that they had endorsed a policy that deprived the United States of that one chance of making Iraq work," said Steven Simon, a former Clinton administration national security official and author of a special report, "After the Surge," for the Council on Foreign Relations.
"And many are convinced that upon the withdrawal of forces, all hell will truly break loose in Iraq, leading to a kind of genocidal slaughter for which the U.S. will be blamed," Simon added. "Taking those two things into account, it's really hard for politicians on either side of the aisle to begin to speak seriously about withdrawal."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/25/MNGGKOAVCQ1.DTL