I heard on NPR the other day that, having passed a "non-binding" resolution opposing President Bush's troop surge policy, that House Speaker Pelosi was now prepared to "challenge" funding for the surge. Well, that'll teach 'em. It may be that "elections have consequences," as my friend Chad has declared, but that's only if the winners are willing to put their muscle where their mouth is. The Democrats ain't, just yet.
The Constitution gives the power of the sword to the Commander in Chief. That means that he can order such forces as he has at his disposal into or out of Iraq, or Iran for that matter. That same charter gives the power of the purse to Congress. It can control the President's policy by funding or not funding it. It was that device by means of which Parliament ultimately wrested control of the British government from the Crown.
If the Democrats really believe that the surge is a bad idea, they can act by blocking funding for for the President's policy until he agrees to return to the status quo, or to withdraw all troops from Iraq. But that, of course, would make them responsible for the outcome in Iraq. The question is not whether the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, but what to do now. Here is how Mickey Kaus puts it:
It's pretty clear in retrospect, that the war with Iraq, however it comes out, was a bad gamble. A mistake, in other words. But now that we've made the mistaken gamble, it also seems clear that the surge might do some good. The correct position, by these lights, was War No, Surge Yes. It would be selfishly callous, in a stereotypically American way, for us to invade Iraq, make a mess, and then not be willing to pay any extra price to help fix the mess we've made. . . .
Yet through a conscientiously applied mixture of high-minded comity, Machiavellian calculation, stubbornness and bad expert advice, Hillary has managed to arrive at a position that's precisely wrong on both counts: War Yes, Surge No.
The Democrat's position right now is: we think the surge is wrong, we but aren't going to stop it. Politically that has a lot to recommend it. If the surge works (God forbid!), then they can say: well, we let you do it. If it fails, as they expect, if not as they hope, then they can say "we told you so." From the point of view of good policy, it is ridiculous. It doesn't remove a single solider from harm's way, but sends the message to the insurgents: we aren't done yet, but punish us just a little more and you will get what you want.
Recent Comments