Once again, Michigan Senator Carl Levin--a Democrat who is ostensibly opposed to the Iraq War having voted against it in 2002--has taken to blaming the Iraqis for the ongoing violence in Iraq rather than confronting the reality of the United States occupation. In two statements released this week (1, 2), Levin discussed his reasons for proposing S.A. 3876. His amendment--which failed by a vote of 50-45--would have expressed "the sense of Congress on the transition of the missions of United States Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007."

Overall, the amendment would have done nothing to end the occupation of Iraq, being non-binding and not making any concrete policy suggestions. However, Levin sees the amendment as being a key aspect of the United States' strategy in Iraq, as it clearly says that the problem lies with Iraqis. In his floor speech, Levin said:

"...our amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that we should have a goal for the removal of most of our forces in a reasonable time mainly as a way of telling the Iraqi leaders they must accept responsibility for their own future."

As he has throughout the past year, Levin accepts the notion President George W. Bush's escalation in Iraq--the so-called "surge"--has worked:

"From all accounts, the surge has already produced some military progress. The problem is that while the surge has, up to this point, achieved some military progress, it has not accomplished its primary purpose, as announced by President Bush last January. President Bush said the surge's purpose was to give the Iraqi Government "the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas" and that "reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.""

However, the "success" of "the surge"--which has been debated outside of Washington--has, in Levin's words, been hampered by the "stunning inaction" of the Iraqi government towards making political progress in Iraq. Levin says that there have been "no consequences" for the Iraqis' failures, and argues that the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq is way of pressuring the Iraqi government:

"Whether the Iraqi political leaders decide to take advantage of this window of opportunity is, of course, their decision. The United States cannot make that decision for them. They are a sovereign country and have to decide what is best for themselves. But whether the United States keeps an open-ended commitment or establishes a goal for redeployment of most of our forces is our decision. That is not the Iraqis' decision. They can decide whether to live up to the commitments they made to themselves and to us--solemn commitments, as far as I am concerned, because it involves the lives of American troops. Those solemn commitments have not been kept. We cannot force them to keep them, but we can decide whether we are going to maintain an open-ended commitment of our troops."

In a longer statement, titled "A Message to the Iraqi Political Leadership," Levin reiterated the points that he made in his floor statement, while also expressing satisfaction that his measure--which ultimately failed--reflects the fact that a majority of Senators are now seeking a change in U.S. strategy in Iraq. However, he then goes on to argue--in language reminiscent of his charge earlier this year that the Iraqis are "dawdling"--that the Iraqis have "squandered" their opportunity for success. He again calls for removing the Iraqi Prime Minister and argues that Iraq must make "political progress" or "face the consequences" of its inaction.