With the situation looking slightly up in Iraq, House Democrats are poised to send the President another war funding bill tied to a timeline for troop withdrawal. Casualties, both of US soldiers and Iraqi civilians, are down in recent months, and other signs point to progress being made in Iraq. Recent reports talk of Sunnis returning to their previously-abandoned Baghdad neighborhoods, a cease-fire with the Mahdi Army, and continued success against Al Qaeda in al-Anbar province. In light of this good news, I have to wonder if Democrats' stance to tie funding to set withdrawal dates is wise.
Recent casualties have made 2007 the deadliest year for US forces in Iraq, and given this, it's no surprise that opposition to the war has hit its peak. But can Democrats sustain this hardline opposition to the war given the improving signs? Nancy Pelosi has said that if the President vetoes this bill that no funding bill will replace it this year. (link) Given the Democrats recent failures with this tactic, I don't see things working out any better this time, particularly when the situation seems to be improving.
I've never been one to support the original invasion of Iraq, but I've since advocated a "you break it, you buy it" policy. We broke Iraq, and it's our responsibility to make it better as long as that's possible. It will take someone far more qualified than I to say when Iraq is sufficiently fixed, but I have a hard time supporting pulling the rug out from underneath the troops when it looks like they're making progress, and I doubt I'm the only one.



