DEPARTING IRAQ

The impending departure of British troops from Iraq is part of the plan for the war-torn country, according to the Bush administration. While the situation in southern Iraq is very different from that in Baghdad, the region is far from secure. So, what is the plan that allows British troops to leave when their job appears unfinished while President Bush prepares to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to complete this country’s mission there? As lawmakers grapple for an answer, they will have to come up with a new definition of success.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced this week that 1,600 British troops would leave Iraq in coming months and that further reductions in its 7,100-member contingent would be forthcoming. At the height of their participation, there were more than 40,000 troops in Iraq.

Democrats in Congress have seized on the British withdrawal as confirmation that it is a mistake to send an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Iraq, as President Bush said he will do despite congressional objections.

They are partially right. The British experience shows Iraqi forces will take on more responsibility only when forced to, says Sen. Susan Collins, who met recently with Britain’s commanders in Iraq. Sending more U.S. troops to the country is counterproductive because it takes the pressure off the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their security.

The willingness of Iraqis to take on more responsibility was called into question by the recent death of Maine native Eric Ross. Sen. Olympia Snowe has asked for an investigation into the death of the Army staff sergeant who was killed Feb. 9 after Iraqi forces reportedly refused to enter a building in Baqouba, northeast of Baghdad.

“The tragic death of Sgt. Ross raises disturbing questions about the nature of his mission in Iraq, the role of Iraqi forces, and even the loyalty of those forces,” Sen. Snowe said after attending the soldier’s funeral in Orono. Sgt. Ross’ father told the senator that an Iraqi squad accompanying his son’s unit refused to enter the booby-trapped building.

“American troops can no longer fight this war for the Iraqi people; they must take an active role in securing their future,” Sen. Snowe said.

Both senators rightly oppose proposals to withhold money for the Iraqi mission and are concerned about rewriting the authorization for the U.S. presence in Iraq because Congress can’t and shouldn’t micromanage the war. Requiring congressional approval to move troops from one location to another or to fight against one opposing force but not another is not practical.

Nor is allowing the war to continue on its current course.

Although long overdue and painfully slow, recent debate on resolutions opposing the troop surge show that Congress has belatedly moved to an open and frank discussion of the war. The next step should be to redefine success, as the British have done, so that American forces can also begin to come home.