| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi? |
| 2007-03-12 |
| Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war. After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should. 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. Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best possible endgame to this very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on indefinitely, but it must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this critical juncture. Bush's wartime leadership does not inspire much confidence. But he has made adjustments to his team, and there's little doubt that a few hundred legislators do not a capable commander in chief make. These aren't partisan judgments — we also condemned Republican efforts to micromanage President Clinton's conduct of military operations in the Balkans. Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the essence of the choice the United States now faces — to stay or go — and putting their money where their mouths are. But too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln. |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #4 A generation from now -- when some of those who are now fighting have run for office and won, and been in office long enough to have risen through the ranks -- your dream will become a reality, 49Pan. Congress will once again hold rank upon rank of Jackson Democrats and whatever the equivalent is for Republicans. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-03-12 19:47 |
| #3 Oh, and while I'm dreaming-how about the winning lotto numbers? I think the odds of winning lotto are better than getting a patriot for a speaker. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-03-12 16:01 |
| #2 Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi? Answer--What we need is a patriot for a speaker. We need a speaker who has been there, been a soldier, slept in a fox hole that might end up his grave, been so afraid he cant speak, carried a dead friend, spent the holidays in some shit hole country alone and away from family, understands what it costs to win and to lose, willing to do whats right, willing to see an action through to the end no matter how hard it gets, and we need a speaker that understands the constitution is a damn site more important than the Republican or Democratic party and certainly more important than oneself. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-03-12 15:51 |
| #1 A maddening irony. During the Rumsfeld regime the dems were screaming "quagmire," admitting defeat in Iraq, keen on disengageing, pulling out. Now General Petreus is kicking a** and running the bad guys out of Baghdad the dems are screaming "quagmire, pull out, end the funding." They are never satisfied. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-03-12 09:09 |