After the veto

Chicago Tribune

President Bush will veto the war spending bill approved by Congress this week because it contains a timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. He is right to do so.

Democrats -- who prevailed in narrow votes in the House and Senate -- recognize that there is a deep public unease over the extended U.S. involvement in Iraq. You won't find a U.S. citizen who doesn't dearly hope that this nation will be able to begin a withdrawal by Oct. 1, as the bill demands.

And maybe the U.S. will be in position to do that. But establishing a congressionally mandated timetable for withdrawal would straitjacket the ability of Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander on the ground, to pursue the stabilization of Iraq as events and conditions warrant.

Sen. Harry Reid said recently the war is "lost." This legislation would all but guarantee it.

The narrow votes in the House and Senate establish that Democrats won't be able to override a presidential veto. So now that they've gone through the process of approving legislation that won't become law, the question is: What next?

After the bill is vetoed, Democrats will have a choice. They could try to starve the war effort by refusing to approve money for it. The Pentagon says it can pay for the Iraq war with existing funds only through June.

The alternative: decide that they have made their point and give Petraeus and his troops the flexibility they need to pursue their mission. And that's what Democrats need to do. Capitol Hill can't run a war.

Democrats argue that the Bush administration doesn't recognize there is public pressure to get the U.S. out of Iraq. Give the Democrats credit for this: Their legislation has given voice to that pressure, that impatience.

The administration seems to be more cognizant of that than it wants to overtly acknowledge. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently signaled that at least informal timelines are in place. He said the administration will take into account Iraq's political progress when deciding this summer whether to bring home some of the thousands of extra troops sent in recent months. Gates said he told Iraqi lawmakers that they need to pass crucial legislation on political reconciliation and the sharing of oil revenues before they recess for the summer.

That will be a strong sign of whether the Iraqi leaders recognize that U.S. cooperation isn't limitless. It will change the political discussion in this country if the Iraqis fail to hold up their end of the bargain.

But establishing a timetable now would be self-defeating. Petraeus reportedly told lawmakers in private that he would need until September to judge whether the troop increase was dousing the Sunni insurgency, sectarian violence and terrorist attacks.

Consider those benchmarks. And consider this: Whatever mistakes the administration has made in Iraq, realists are now in charge. A new defense secretary and a new commander on the ground should have time and flexibility to see if they can succeed where their predecessors failed.

The U.S. has an obligation to assist Iraq in building a military and a governing structure that can defend itself and lead a reasonably safe and stable society. Iraq has an obligation to build itself into a functioning democracy.

They're not there yet, but the legislation approved by the House and Senate won't get them there.