There's been a lot of opposition here to a nonbinding resolution on the Iraq War on the basis that it doesn't accomplish anything. Most people here, and perhaps even all of us given that we here are representative of big parts of the Democratic base, want funding yanked.
But the House and Senate leadership's approach to start with a nonbinding resolution is a great, and really the only good, idea. Why? See below the jump.
The cliche says that politics is the art of the possible. That's not exactly true. Policy and law are the art of the possible. Politics does not require "the possible." But what people here who denounce a nonbinding resolution and demand immediate yanking of war funding are pushing for is, indeed, law. And the law they want is not possible...yet.
When I was in law school, one professor taught us that the reality in any civil lawsuit is that the party who has the money in dispute has the advantage. That's because the other party is trying to take it away, and that's simply harder than keeping it.
What is true in a courtroom is even more true in the Federal Government. Dubya already has the money to start his troop increase. (...which, by the way, I've evolved into refusing to call an escalation, a surge, or an augmentation, because what it really constitutes is "more of the same." It's the same strategy as before with just slightly different tactics including more U.S. servicemembers thrown into the mix. Dubya has been doing this for years, slightly changing tactics.) Taking it away requires enough Goopers to jump ship to get past not only the Senate cloture vote but also a certain veto. That requires, even if all Dems to vote together, more than one-third of Senate Goopers and over one-quarter of House Goopers to jump ship. Those votes don't exist and never have. So what legislation to cut off funds gets us is certain defeat. And what are we left with after that? A mere political statement...the same as what we get with a nonbinding resolution. Is a defeated bill to yank funding any stronger a political statement than a nonbinding resolution? With us in the Democratic base or who otherwise share our intensity of opposition to the war, yes, but not with a majority of voters--that intensity isn't there among the majority.
Pelosi, Reid, and other Congressional Dem leaders are very smart to recognize that the process of ending this war is a political one that must be drawn out because it cannot be accomplished quickly. And the nonbinding resolution is step one. Force Goopers to go home and take the heat for their vote on the resolution, which combined with continued failure in Iraq helps move toward an increasing number of defections. We're not going to see defections right now because the next election is too far away and voters have short memories. If Goopers abandon Dubya this April or September or perhaps even later, voters won't care that they didn't do so in February. We in our echo chamber would love to believe otherwise, but a voter must feel a lot of intensity to care about something like the timing of when his/her Rep. or Sen. turns, and most voters simply don't share our intensity here in our Democratic base. Most voters share our bottom-line opinions, but not our intensity.
But while we're in a position of weakness to yank money already appropriated, we're in a position of strength regarding money Dubya wants in a supplemental budget request for FY 2007 and, later, the regular request for FY 2008. Dubya and the Congressional Goopers cannot compel Dems to vote for prospective funding anymore than we can compel Goopers to vote for a yanking of already-appropriated funds. Further, Pelosi and Murtha are ingenious to tie the funding to strict conditions on training, equipment, and rest. This is a subtle but effective squeeze using legitimate and popular public concerns about the conduct of the war. As Murtha himself recently said, if Dubya vetoes the restrictive appropriations bill, he doesn't get any money--again, the party that has the money has the advantage.
The public is, in fact, very divided and conflicted on using the power of the purse to cut off Dubya's legs in Iraq. Polling demonstrates this, as poll results are conflicted depending on everything from the wording on the question to, very possibly, what a given respondent had for dinner. So politically, yanking prospective funding is a battle we can lose in the court of public opinion...it's not a given our narratives will win the day, even though we're right. Thus, Congressional Dems are finding ways to squeeze the war in a way that provides some political cover.
I know plenty of people might complain that this is all "just playing politics," as the derisive refrain goes. Well, guess what, folks: politics matter, and you must play! As the '80s band "Foreigner" sang, "If you wanna win you gotta learn how to play: HEAD GAMES!" Remember when Bush 41 shut down the government rather than sign Dem appropriations bills that Bush 41 decided were too spend-happy? Bush 41 lost that political battle. Remember when Newt & Co. tried to force an austerity program on America with the FY 1995 federal appropriations bills? Newt & Co. lost that political battle. Those battles show not that Goopers always lose these battles, but that either branch can win or lose in the court of public opinion, and perhaps that Americans don't like the Federal Government to be misers. Either lesson puts the Dems in a tough spot that is not a clear, easy win. And when you lose politically, you've lost the real war that must be won to both get us out of Iraq and make sure the dominant narrative is the one that says we must never do anything this stupid again.
I want the war in Iraq ended as fast as possible. I was hostile to the point of rage and depression in the lead-up to it, and like many of you I have nothing to show for it now but the solace and empty pride of knowing we were right, and for the right reasons. But it's simply not as easy as some people in the Democratic base act like it is.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing what we can to demand funding be yanked. If we don't stand up for that, then no one will, and we'll be in Iraq forever and ever and ever. But at the same time we need to recognize political realities and that Pelosi, Reid, and others are doing everything they can to work through the maze of those realities.