Surging Against Whom, Exactly?

No, I didn't watch Dubya's speech last evening and I've only skimmed it this morning. As the song says, what I'm looking for is a little less talk and a lot more action. The good news, from what I gather, is not only that more troops are going in, but that the rules of engagement are being modified as well. To my admittedly untrained mind, this seems to be of far greater consequence and potential benefit than simple numbers.

What got my attention more was this piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal on the newly-installed Pelosi Copperheads. (It also gave me an excuse to post this old Harper's Weekly cartoon from the Civil War. The middle snake does look something like Madame Speaker):

Ostensibly, the Democratic complaint is that the Administration has failed to come up with a new strategy for Iraq. In fact, Mr. Bush says he is offering a qualitative departure from what the U.S. has attempted before. (See "Mission Baghdad.") The real question is whether the Democrats are prepared to act like a responsible opposition now that they control both houses of Congress, in contrast to the last four years of partisan minority sniping.

On the evidence of the past week, the answer is no. On Tuesday, the Democrats announced they would hold a symbolic, nonbinding vote on the troop increase, without so much as hearing what the President has to say. The vote, says Senator Joe Biden, is an effort to "demonstrate to the President he's on his own." So much for presenting a united American face to the jihadis and insurgents killing our troops in Iraq. And this from someone who fancies himself Presidential-timber.

Such a vote would be pure partisanship, and of an especially ugly sort. If Democrats seriously believe that a troop surge "will endanger more Americans," then there might be some moral justification in using Congress's power of the purse to cut off funds for the war. But as House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel candidly explained, "anytime, politically, you have to explain what you are saying, you have a problem. And so if I am there saying, 'Cut the funds for Iraq and the war in Iraq,' then someone is going to say, 'You are taking away rifles.' "

So the Democrats want the political mileage of opposing the troop increase rhetorically. What they don't want is to take responsibility for their own policy choice. Meanwhile, their rhetoric will only serve to reassure the jihadis that sooner or later Democrats will force a U.S. withdrawal. It's enough to give a half-cheer to genuine Democratic isolationists, who have proposed legislation that would require the President to seek approval to fund additional troop increases. At least they're willing to go on record.

Most reckless is the contention, also by Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, that "it is time to bring the war to a close." No one serious--not even the Iraq Study Group--believes that the war will end if we leave. Instead, it will change into a civil war in Iraq, and perhaps a wider regional war, that is likely to draw our forces back in again somewhere in the Middle East. As the bipartisan ISG noted in its December report, "If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

If Congressional Democrats want to be constructive, they can insist that Mr. Bush and his generals truly implement the strategy he is now endorsing. The path Democrats have followed in the minority and are now continuing will only make U.S. success harder--a truth the American people will come to understand, and resent.

Of course, this presupposes that the Dems do want to be constructive. But other than a handful like Holy Joe Lieberman, it seems to me that most of them are more interested in taking down Dubya regardless of the wider implications than they are in actually promoting the greater common interest. For the good of the country, I hope they quickly shelve this vendetta and begin to act responsibly.