After the president's veto, the Iraq debate begins anew

President Bush has the constitutional right to do what he says he will do: veto a supplemental budget bill that contains language approved by most Democrats and a handful of Republicans setting deadlines for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
But in exercising that veto, the president owes the American people more of an explanation than he has given so far.
The legislation calls for the United States to begin withdrawing troops in four months. That time line is not much different from one outlined by the new U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, when he was testifying before the Senate a few weeks ago. More recently, Maj. Gen. William C. Caldwell said during in interview in Dubai that Petraeus won't know until the fall when U.S. troop levels will be brought back down.
On the face of it, Congress and Petraeus aren't that far off about when troop levels should start to be reduced. If the president is willing to commit to a timetable along the lines of that given by Petraeus, he and Congress might well be able to reach an agreement.
Gauging success or failure
If the 21,000 additional troops being sent to Iraq bring a reduction in violence and a new level of stabilization, troop levels can be reduced. And if the surge doesn't work, the United States would still have little alternative than to begin withdrawing. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the United States must tell the government of Iraq that if Iraqis want a new and free country, it is up to Iraqis to make it free.
The House and Senate conference committees should complete their work quickly so that the bill can be sent to the president's desk.
If it is vetoed, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate can decide what is most important, deadlines that may or may not bring U.S. involvement in Iraq to a quicker conclusion, or language designed to assure that the United States military is not depleted in personnel and materiel to the extent that national security is being compromised.
In a recent piece for the Christian Science Monitor, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, and Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, wrote that U.S. armed services are at the breaking point.
State of disrepair
They wrote that not a single Army unit in the continental United States has all the trained personnel and equipment needed to complete their missions if they were called into combat or to respond to a domestic natural disaster or attack.
Manpower has been maintained by extending combat deployments in Iraq and through multiple deployments of National Guard and Reserve forces.
The General Accountability Office reports pre-positioned stores of military equipment strategically located around the world in case of emergencies have been depleted.
Rather than set dates for withdrawal of troops that invite a presidential veto, Congress should stick to its guns on a demand that no further troops be deployed to Iraq unless it can be shown that they have the proper equipment and training and have been given the time away from combat to which they are entitled. If the president chooses to veto a supplemental appropriations bill because it demands only that which every soldier should have, let him do so. And let those in Congress who would vote to uphold such a veto do so at their own political peril.
Going into Iraq was a mistake. Staying there indefinitely and without a clear indication that Iraqis want to live in peace only compounds that mistake.
President Bush has been unable to acknowledge the truth, and a compliant Congress was unwilling to challenge him. That has changed.