Partisionship versus Compromise

The House debate on an Iraq resolution that would support troops while disagreeing with the decision to escalate the number of military confronts anyone with the problem of how such disagreement can be bridged. And, if such disagreement cannot be bridged, what does this mean?

I come from a background that resulted in my seemingly being in a confrontational mode in many, if not all, of my occupational settings. I was aware of others who apparently had the skills to stay sane even when they agreed with me that the positions of the leadership were indefensible. I could never figure out how they did it!

While it was always evident that entering Iraq was a terrible error in judgment, if no other reason that there was no rationale strategy of ever achieving a viable coalition of historically antagonistic loyalties (Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds), there is no clear strategy for exiting. While those who advocate increased military forces admit that failure remains a possibility. All the plans of those advocating withdrawal, either sooner or in a more phased out deployment, agree to the possibility of a massive internal devastating civil chaos.

Those advocating a plan for withdrawal can compromise on elements of the plan, e.g., time-frame, number of military bases that require closing. But how can these congressional leaders compromise on the major disagreement: escalation rather than withdrawal?

Partisanship is inevitable when there are no possible grounds for compromise. Both advocate their positions as the basis for a political solution: (a) escalate military forces to give the Iraqi leaders time to deal with the forces leading the nation into chaos; (b) withdraw forces to reinforce the need of the Iraqi leaders to assume the required leadership. The different strategies are significant because lives of American military are at stake. There is a need of the American public to let their congressional representatives know how this critical issue should be resolved, including the need to advance the debate to the need to withdraw funding to force the phased withdrawal of forces. It is a call for partisanship!