Democrats Try to Have it Both Ways with Non-Binding Resolution
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in IraqThe Wall Street Journal blasts Congress for the non-binding resolution opposing the Iraq troop surge. The Journal’s opinion is pretty straight-forward:
1) the resolution emboldens the enemy by signaling that the U.S. Congress expects defeat.
2) it’s a cowardly move to rhetorically oppose the mission but effectively do nothing to stop the surge.
The most convincing argument:
[I]f Congress feels so strongly about the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them from harm’s way by voting to cut off the funds they need to operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for what followed–whether those consequences are Americans killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all is being accountable.
We aren’t prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this week’s vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don’t have the political courage to help end.
This is where the Democrat’s “support the troops, not the war� position reveals its true emptiness. It’s always been impossible to support the troops without also supporting their mission. You may fervently pray for the troops’ safety and wish for their speedy return but that is not support. That is compassion. Support requires a commitment to the mission and an expectation of success.
It’s ok to be compassionate but not offer support, but Democrats won’t say as much because they’re afraid of being labeled weak on defense. So now, when the moment has come to make a real impact on this war, the Dems are paralyzed. Withdrawing funds certainly indicates a lack of support for the troops. But saying nothing about the surge indicates a lack of opposition to the mission.
The result is the impotent non-binding resolution … an official scolding that does nothing to deter Bush. Does it also embolden the enemy? That sounds to me like political posturing, a tired accusation pro-war sides always fling at the anti-war side. In reality, our failure to effectively combat the insurgents/terrorists/sectarian evildoers has done far more to embolden the enemy than will this resolution.
But that doesn’t make the resolution any less of a bad idea. If Democrats believe we are destined for failure, they need to pull the plug and take responsibility for the fallout. If they think we can still secure some form of victory, they need to allow the military and the Commander-in-Chief to do what they think is necessary to win – or, at the very least, if Democrats “support the troops,� they need to propose alternatives that don’t involve a total retreat and abandonment of all facets of the mission.
Personally, I think the surge is the wrong tactic. But I’m not resigned to defeat so I support this last attempt to secure some form of victory. I wish the President had chosen a different path but I am not yet prepared to move into the anti-war camp.
The question now is, when will the Democrats be ready to be anti-war? Their support the troops, oppose the mission philosophy is just an excuse for refusing to take responsibility. They’re trying to split the middle on an issue that has no middle. Now’s the time to either cut off funds or stop declaring American defeat.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 15th, 2007 and is filed under Iraq. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
That was a truly inspiring post in its clarity and one of the reasons I continue to grace Donklephant with my presence. It absolutely desires a response from any opposing view.
Accountability is the key political issue here. It is a big old gamble and so the natural response is to hedge your bet - Republicans are doing this too, obviously. Rational if not very courageous.
February 15th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I think its perfectly reasonable to say, “we don’t support this mission, bring the troops home.” There is nothing inherently unpatriotic or anti-military about it. Now that all the military funding for Iraq is run through congress not just in the form of supplimentals, I see nothing wrong with the congress cutting off funds to the mission in order to stop it immediately.
It is completely disingenuous to have it non-binding, and then advocate the “slow bleed” method favored by Murtha, which will allow the surge to go forward, yet put our troops at risk over the next 2 years as it takes effect beginning next april. American troops will die simply because the Democrats want to humiliate the president and end the war without taking the responsibility to do so. I question John Murtha’s patriotism.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Mr. Carl; You are so wrong summing up the Democrats actions in Congress and the WSJ is so inept at presenting the reality of the situation that it just begs the overused conclusion that the Repubs just can’t do anything but “more of the same”. The same delusional policies that got us off the track of fighting terrorism and created this wag the dog, groundhog day nightmare. Clearly the greatest foreign policy blunder of my lifetime. And you wanted to impeach Clinton for doing what? It’s a laughing stock to the rest of the world, and you keep perpetuating it like GM robots just keep putting out big SUV’s.
I do, however partially agree with the previous comments that accountability is a hard commodity to fing in this Congress, and that the administration has at least showed they posess testicles of granite. Unfortunately their brains are made of the same stuff. Being stubborn only works when you’re right, and they haven’t even been close !
Now the Dems. actions may seem calculating and lame to you, but they insist that this is only the start of the debate on Iraq. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, after all, look how much patience you’ve showed with this President. You can somehow rational the policy of ‘I’ll trust the Generals on the ground. They’ll get what ever they need, and they say we don’t need more troops…’ So after much advice and rhetoric about ‘a new course of action’ in Iraq, what does he do but fire the goodfernothing bastards and send in more of the same.
February 15th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
BenG,
For clarification, I am no Republican and do not hold the views you probably think I do. My opinion is not part of some party line but is based on my own thoughts, observations and ideologies.
That said, we clearly do disagree about the Dems actions. I’m not sure that the party wants to really debate Iraq. Debate implies that there are still decisions to be made. But the majority of the party seems to have decided already that retreat is the only sensical action. That’s fine–totally justifiable. What’s harder to justify is, if Dems see no possible path to success, why let more soldiers die during a debate that has a predetermined conclusion? Shouldn’t the party be doing all it can to save as many American soldier’s lives that they can? To me, the delay is politically motivated. And that’s nothing to cheer.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Mr. Carl,
I’m afraid I blamed you for the phrase that infuriates me the most; that voicing opposition of present policy ‘emboldens the enemy by signaling that the US Congress expects defeat’, even though you were quoting someone else. For this I apologize. Unfortunately when you put yourself out there and express your opinion truthfully and impressively, as you often do, you get crazies like me trying to prove you wrong. But make no mistake, we all appreciate your views because we learn something, and that’s what it’s all about.
What I should’ve said is that the “official scolding that does nothing to deter Bush” is a far cry from the official red carpet that he was previously receiving from the Repub. congress. I think the Dems. are being practical here, they know they can’t stop the ‘decider’ from being Commander n Chief. But they ARE playing it safe, and I think you want them to take the gloves off and put up or shut up. Some are trying to do this, others are being more pragmatic. Either way, to your point, it does seem a waste of time. Maybe we’re just too accostumed to the team play we get with the Repubs. Everyone in step like a good ‘ol Opry line dance. Look where that’s gotten us.
Anyway, keep up the good work, it is appreciated.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I think that the Democrats are going about it the wrong way.I think that they should demand that all our National Guard units return from overseas in 183 days.They are not the International Guard! If they don’t ,then cut off all funding for Iraq.The surge itself may work,if our troops and all concerned Iraq’s actually get the the training and equipment they need.Who is the lead expediter for this mad hatter’s tea party,anyway?