Democrats’ Iraq Plans “Absurd”

by Sean Hackbarth

The Democrats have bungled their “slow bleed” tactic of getting the U.S. out of Iraq so much the LA Times is chiding them:

It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It’s quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.

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.

Losing an already anti-Bush media doesn’t bode well for the Democrats. Between Rep. Obey dealing with “idiot liberals” and the media their road to ending the Iraq War is very rocky.

“Do We Really Need a Gen. Pelosi?”

UPDATE: Bruce McQuain adds:

Again, if Congressional Democrats truly believe that this war must end, have the courage to defund it. If they’re not going to do that, then step back, shut up and let those who have the authority to actually make decisions about the conduct of the war do so.

Either way there are going to be political repercussions and the Democrats aren’t going to be able to avoid them, no matter how hard they try.

Save and Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • NewsVine
  • Furl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Fark

2 Responses to “Democrats’ Iraq Plans “Absurd””

1

There’s no such thing as the “Democratic Slow Bleed” plan.

2

The Democrats are beginning to realize that their slow bleed plan leaves their fingerprints all over what they are making their war. If they micromanage it, they own it.

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>