Micromanaging The War

The Democrats in Congress, driven inexorably by the polls, are slowly but unsurely, wending their way toward passage of a horrid bill. This legislation, which will surely be vetoed by Bush, calls for the meeting of specific benchmarks by the Iraqi government, specific training and equipment requirements meant solely to slow the rotation of new troops. The bill also demands the withdrawal of American troops by 2008, presumably so the next, possibly Democratic, President will not have to actually make any decisions about Iraq that might come back to haunt the Dems if terrorists conclude that our withdrawal is an open invitation to attack us again.

In an editorial today, the LA Times decries their tinkering:

This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against Iraq.

But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, however faint, that the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S. economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't be bombed away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let the president try this "surge and leverage" strategy.

By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.

The irony of the current Democratic stance is that it fails to acknowledge the significant changes and corrections taken by the administration. Rumsfeld is thankfully gone. Gen. Petraeus is now in charge in Iraq and has planned this surge with a different set of tactics than were used by his predecessors. Although there are some hopeful signs, it is still too early to know if his approach will work. If Congress didn't believe his plan could work, why the hell did they confirm him almost unanimously? It is now as if Democrats are hoping for the worst possible news out of Iraq. If success seems to be growing they will look increasingly foolish. Are they now rooting for chaos?

As the Times notes, it is as if the Congress in early 1863 suddenly demanded an end to the Civil War soon after President Lincoln finally bit the bullet and fired the ineffective Gen. McClellan and replaced him with U.S. Grant. If Petraeus is good, then let him do his job, for at least long enough for a fair judgment about the probable outcome of his approach to controlling the sectarian violence in Baghdad.

Democrats, May Be Shut Out Of Power In The Long Term By Their Opposition To The War

Lawrence Haas, a former communications director for VP Al Gore, draws a parallel between the current scramble among Democrats to be the most anti-war partisans and the post-Vietnam collapse of their power after Carter's single term.

Key quote:

Will history repeat itself? To be sure, the White House seems an achievable target for Democrats in 2008, just as it was in 1976. Public disenchantment with President Bush in general, and with the war in Iraq in particular, should give Democrats a good head start.

Leading Democrats, none more so than their presidential candidates, are disavowing their previous votes or statements for the war and competing for anti-Bush purity. They are demanding that Bush end the war in Iraq before the next (presumably Democratic) president takes office in 2009. Momentum is building to block funding later this year.

But, in playing to their anti-war political base, congressional Democrats are pushing party orthodoxy on foreign policy further to the left. After a two-year campaign, any successful Democratic candidate for president may wind up with little leeway to project U.S. power abroad.

Unfortunately, the world will not likely cooperate with a hemmed-in president. Just as Soviet expansionism in the late 1970s reminded America that the Cold War was still on, so may the aftermath of Iraq remind Americans of the larger struggle at hand. Just as our withdrawal from Vietnam emboldened the Soviets, a withdrawal from Iraq may do likewise for today’s enemies.

Clearly, a failure in Iraq will create a haven for terrorists, including those from al-Qaida whom we are fighting there today. It will create a regional power vacuum to be filled by an increasingly emboldened Iran, which is stoking the fires in Iraq while ignoring international efforts to stop its nuclear program.

The world will grow more dangerous, not less. Failure in Iraq, leading to an exodus of U.S. forces, will provide merely the illusion of peace. The terrorists will challenge the United States in more places around the world while plotting to bring more turmoil to our homeland.

At some point, the nation will recapture its spirit. Taunted by our enemies or attacked directly, Americans will look to the party that is ready to respond in kind. Will Democrats once more be on the losing end?

Just the kind of sentiment that will drive the boys and girls over at Daily Kos right up the wall. Heh.

Why Are The Democrats Reluctant To Force An End In Iraq? It's The Politics, Stupid

In case, like me, you have been mystified by the statements by Democratic leaders in Congress that the non-binding resolutions now being considered are just a necessary first step, John Bresnahan in The Politico provides the explanation.

Pelosi, Murtha and company, along with the key anti-war groups, are concerned that they will lose support in the polls if they go for an immediate cut off of funds. They believe they will be vulnerable to the charge that they are abandoning US troops in the field. Thus, the plan is to slowly choke the ability of the Defense Dept. to field the necessary number of troops by limiting the number of tours any individual or unit can serve and requiring absolute adherence to the highest standards of training and equipment readiness before any unit can be deployed into Iraq.

Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing "anti-military" while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to be more aggressive.

"What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without cutting off funding" for the troops, said Tom Mazzie of Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq. "We call it the 'readiness strategy.'"

Murtha's proposal, which has been kept under tight wraps, is likely to pass the House next month or in early April as part of the supplemental spending bill, Democratic insiders said, if the language remains tightly focused and does not threaten funding levels for combat forces already in the field. The battle will then shift to the Senate. Anti-war groups like Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnestoa, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition.

The fly in the ointment for the Dems, of course, would be any significant signs of success of the Petraeus strategy. If poll numbers start to reflect that Americans are beginning to believe that the new approach is in fact working, the Dems will be seen as choking off that rarest of things in our sorry involvement in Iraq, success. If Sadr has in fact fled the country and actions against Shiite neighborhoods are the initial signs of such success, the very gradualism of the Democratic approach will be its undoing. They will be hoisted on their own lack of political courage.