Now that Democrats have won the power struggle for control of Congress, the end to the problems in Iraq are all but assured. Yeah, and I'm going to win the lottery. While both scenarios are theoretically possible, the likelihood of such an ideal situation developing is virtually nonexistent.
A Congressional change of power is reason for hope, but to suggest that the United States is anywhere close to being absolved from the situation in Iraq is borderline insane. Merely electing a few new government officials into office will not immediately solve the quandary that is the war in Iraq.
However, these newly elected senators and representatives do force the government to examine and explore alternatives to the current policies under which it is operating. Therein is the reason for hope among Americans who are discontent with the war.
As UW-Madison history Professor Jeremi Suri suggested, if Republicans had stayed in power, there would have been no discussion for a change in strategy and, most likely, no change in policy.
""They [Democrats] have basically been running against a failed Bush policy,"" Suri said, because they knew they could get votes from a public that has become increasingly disgruntled with the war.
By voting Democrats in to power, it is clear the general U.S. population wants to see a change in the Iraq policy. Yet in all likelihood, the U.S. policy in Iraq will not change much, if at all, as even the most ardent Democrats realize that a failed Iraq is in the best interest of no one.
People want to see drastic steps taken to divulge ourselves from Iraq. However, that works both ways; a move in the right direction and everything may work out fine, but a move in the wrong direction has dire repercussions for the ensuing century. As reported in the Wisconsin State Journal, the President's chief of staff Joshua Bolten agrees.
""We need to take a fresh look,"" Bolten said Sunday on CBS' ""Face the Nation."" ""But what we cannot do is pull out of there prematurely and leave a failed state behind. It's absolutely critical to our national security.""
While the solution is complex, the central questions are simple: What strategy will the Democratic-led Congress follow that the previously Republican-led Congress did not? And, more importantly, will that strategy be successful?
""This is a difficult issue with no easy answer,"" Suri said. ""Clearly what we are doing is not working, but pulling out is not an option either.""
On Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who is expected to head the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on ABC's ""This Week"" that Democrats would change course in Iraq. Levin suggested phased withdrawal, but, according to Suri, no clear consensus among Democrats exists right now, which is ""fine as long as they are working toward a position and building support for one.""
Ultimately, only three ""solutions"" have been mentioned: ""cut and run,"" phased withdrawal, or ""stay the course."" The Republican mantra has been the latter, while the Democratic tune has wavered between the former two options.
A phased withdrawal, as Levin has suggested, seems the most practical, but serious discretion needs to be taken in doing so. If there is any reason to suggest that troop withdrawal from Iraq will further inflame the region, then the withdrawal should not occur.
As an American, I can only hope the momentum that Democrats now have for change in Iraq is not hastily put to use. The ramifications of doing so would be just as disastrous as the hurriedly conceived plan of invading Iraq three-and-a-half years ago.
The Democrats have finally gotten the power they wanted, but a resounding unanswered question repeatedly comes to mind: Can they deliver? And no, simply ordering the troops to pack their bags and head home is not an answer. People need to realize that leaving Iraq will not be easy. We can only wait and see what this Democratic Congress can do.
