by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 16, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

ushing for a non-binding congressional resolution opposing President George W. Bush's “troop surge” in Iraq, Democrats staged the latest dog-and-pony show, causing more rancor and division. Bush has made it clear as Commander-in-Chief, he has no intention of switching gears before a new president is sworn in Jan. 20, 2009. Whatever the message or mandate from the Nov. 7, 2006 midyear election, the White House intends to fight for “victory” regardless of the costs in U.S. lives and tax dollars. Democrats feel obligated—and entitled—to go on record opposing Bush's last-ditch attempt to salvage Iraq. Few experts really believe the Baghdad crackdown will stop the bloody insurgency supported by Iran, Syria, Russia and a host of Islamic countries, opposed to U.S. Mideast policy. With the non-binding resolution, Democrats send the wrong message.

      Republicans have done a good job of turning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and congressional Democrats into left-wing antiwar fanatics. “The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction that will end the fighting and bring our troops home,” said Pelosi, opposed to sending the 21,500 new troops. While there's strong feelings opposing the Iraq war on both sides of the aisle, the non-binding resolution offers only bad publicity to Democrats, trying to convince voters they're tough enough to manage national security. Pelosi would be better off refining her talking points, not pushing for a toothless congressional resolution. “There are serious consequences to our national security if we fail in Iraq,” said Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), echoing White House propaganda. In reality, there are serious consequences if the U.S. stays.

      White House PR has sold the public on the certainty of a bloodbath, should the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. No one really knows how things would shake out. Much has been made of Al Qaeda, whose shadowy role in Iraq's insurgency remains unknown. When Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed June 8, 2006, the White House hoped to break the insurgency. Since then, the insurgency escalated, with the U.S. facing more casualties, now over 3,100. Pelosi and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Philadelphia) support “benchmarks” for continuing funding, something opposed by most congressional Republicans. “We have a responsibility, Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility, to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail,” said Bush, rejecting calls to cut or restrict funding based on verifiable accomplishments.

      Bush stayed on message about supporting the troops but doesn't deal with the basic question of whether the original mission was flawed. In the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, testimony challenged the White House excuse for war. Cheney became obsessed with former Amb. Joseph C. Wilson IV's July 6, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times, criticizing the White House for twisting prewar intelligence. Bush wants to “support” the troops but doesn't want to ask whether the mission is justified. He doesn't want to question the ongoing death toll or whether the U.S. military and treasury should make more sacrifices. “I will do everything in my power to ensure the House resolution dies an inglorious death in the Senate,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), against Pelosi's non-binding resolution.

      Painting Democrats as pacifists and appeasers hasn't played well recently, judging by the public's growing opposition to the war. Bush's “troop surge” gives disgruntled voters one last chance to believe Iraq is salvageable. Reducing violence in Baghdad should help stem the public perception that Iraq is a lost cause. “This country needs a dramatic change of course in Iraq and it is the responsibility of Congress to consummate change,” said Murtha, believing the non-binding resolution would drive home to Bush the need for change. Murtha also wants to make continued war funding contingent on specific benchmarks, including pressuring Iraqis to take a more active role in battling insurgents. Murtha finds it difficult to trust Iraq's current government while maintaining strong ties to anti-Amercian Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

      Passing a non-binding congressional resolution 246-182 sends the wrong message at the wrong time. No one at the White House is receptive to giving up on Iraq. Instead of humiliating the White House, congressional Democrats should come up with a better plan than Bush's “troop surge” to help stop the bloodshed in Baghdad. Placing more U.S. troops in Baghdad should help reduce the violence, currently claiming about 3,000 Iraqi casualties a month. “The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home,” said Pelosi, after passing Congressional Resolution 63. While the vote has only symbolic meaning, it signals Democrats' beginning attempt to de-fund the war. One thing's for sure: However the battlefield changes in Iraq, it's going to shift to Congress between now and the 2008 presidential election.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.