For a Smarter, Saner Democratic Party
Now, I was the first to cheer when Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress in November, but I feared something akin to what is happening now. It seems that Reid and Pelosi are trial-ballooning a plan to refuse to fund any new troop surge. Hopefully, it will fizzle as quickly as when John Kerry trial-ballooned offering the VP slot to John McCain (not that that was a bad strategy, merely that it fizzled quickly).
Any effort to “cut off funding” to the troops can and will easily be framed by Republicans as dishonest, disloyal and unpatriotic. Granted, they are only talking about refusing to fund an “escalation” or “surge” of the war, and not the troops already fighting. However, such subtleties rarely work well in the battle for press headlines.
The Democrats have been on the wrong side of this war each time, all because of their perpetual fear of defying the polls. When the majority of the public was in favor of the war, they hemmed and hawed and ultimately most of them voted to approve the authorization to use force. Imagine if they had adamantly refused to condone any action in Iraq, and came out strongly against it. They would be heralded as visionaries and the Republicans would look even more foolish than they do now. Then, come 2008, the Iraq quagmire would be an albatross around the Republican’s necks and the Republicans’ necks alone. Instead, as in 2004, Republicans will be able to paint certain Senate Democrats as complicit in the war (e.g. Hillary Clinton).
Now they’re prepared to allow the headline “Democrats consider cutting off funding for Iraq War.” I agree that the surge is probably far too few soldiers to make any real impact, no matter what renowned military historian John Keegan says. At the same time, it might be better than the status quo, and withdrawal under the guise of “redeployment” still stinks of a betrayal of the Iraqis, at least the Kurds and to a lesser extends the Shi’ites.
Mr. Bush will probably have his surge no matter what, and this foolishness about cutting off funding will put the Democrats in a politically perilous position.
Any effort to “cut off funding” to the troops can and will easily be framed by Republicans as dishonest, disloyal and unpatriotic. Granted, they are only talking about refusing to fund an “escalation” or “surge” of the war, and not the troops already fighting. However, such subtleties rarely work well in the battle for press headlines.
The Democrats have been on the wrong side of this war each time, all because of their perpetual fear of defying the polls. When the majority of the public was in favor of the war, they hemmed and hawed and ultimately most of them voted to approve the authorization to use force. Imagine if they had adamantly refused to condone any action in Iraq, and came out strongly against it. They would be heralded as visionaries and the Republicans would look even more foolish than they do now. Then, come 2008, the Iraq quagmire would be an albatross around the Republican’s necks and the Republicans’ necks alone. Instead, as in 2004, Republicans will be able to paint certain Senate Democrats as complicit in the war (e.g. Hillary Clinton).
Now they’re prepared to allow the headline “Democrats consider cutting off funding for Iraq War.” I agree that the surge is probably far too few soldiers to make any real impact, no matter what renowned military historian John Keegan says. At the same time, it might be better than the status quo, and withdrawal under the guise of “redeployment” still stinks of a betrayal of the Iraqis, at least the Kurds and to a lesser extends the Shi’ites.
Mr. Bush will probably have his surge no matter what, and this foolishness about cutting off funding will put the Democrats in a politically perilous position.
