Redstate

By smagar Posted in Archived — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Promoted from diaries by Mark I.

It sends a signal that America's government is weak and irresolute. It sets a bad precedent for how Congress and the President interrelate during wartime. And, most of all, if I'd ever tried something like this while I was in the Army, my brigade XO would have taken me out behind the Command Post for an extended session of wall-to-wall counseling!

Read on

Supporters of this non-binding resolution say they're trying to send a message to the President. Oh--I didn't know the phone and e-mail lines to the White House have been cut. Nor did I know that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has stopped accepting visitors.

The President has heard their message. He's rejected it, because the Senate offers no viable alternative path to success. They instead counsel retreat. As Commander-in-Chief (his job), he's chosen a different path.

The Senate could act within its authority and cut funds. They won't do that. Instead, they opt for a cover-your-butt resolution that lays a foundation on which they can try to escape blame for any future problems in Iraq.

Does that sound like the actions of a "strong horse" to you? Or, those of a "paper tiger"? (Background: Bin Laden called America a "paper tiger" for retreating from Somalia).

Jihadhis are keen students of American politics and debate. They are looking for words/actions of ours that they can then trumpet to the Arab street as proof that America is shirking away from Iraq. "Look, my neighbor," they'll say to the Arab on the street, "the American Senate lacks the guts to really act! They pass instead this joke of a measure. Does THIS sound like a country you can trust? No, my friend, you cannot trust the Americans. They are preparing to run! They just lack the courage to come out and admit it!"

As for all the nuanced justifications the resolution supporters are advancing ("this is non-binding," "we're simply trying to further debate by doing this"), spare us the self-serving rhetoric. As Captain Ed once said, Al Qaeda doesn't do nuance. It does big picture. The "big picture" of Congress turning on a President who's leading a war effort, is what the Arabs will see. All the nuances will just get stripped off by the jihadhi propagandists and the Arab media.

These Senators know this. They know that a non-binding resolution will not stop President Bush from pushing forward with the surge. So, why pass it? What practical value does it add? None. BUT, it can serve as a powerful weapon for our opponents in the PR war.

It is important to hold Congressmen and Senators accountable for the bad messages they send. Especially in wartime. Especially when we have our own people in the field getting shot at/bombed, who will have to deal with (or try to compensate for) the consequences of those bad messages Congress is choosing to send. As a party man/woman, there are plenty of things you shrug off or overlook. IMO, not this one.

Our troops in Iraq will be safer if the enemy feels this fight is not worth fighting. Resolutions like this, designed on their face to be nothing more that PR stunts, make us seem like an irresolute nation. Like a paper tiger. Like someone who can be beaten. That will inspire the jihadhis to fight harder, and will lead potential supporters of the new Iraq government to stay on the sidelines.

ALSO, this sets a bad precedent in WH/Congressional relations in how to handle wartime decisions. Now I'll fall back on my Army experiences.

When an Army staff comes up with possible Courses of Action (COA) for a particular operations, often the COAs differ drastically. One COA may say that, in order to secure the town, we should enter it in force and occupy the town center. Another COA may say we should avoid the town altogether, and instead capture the bridges leading into town. A third COA may say we should occupy just the residential neighborhoods.

All drastically different ways of accomplishing the same goal. It's not uncommon for individual staff members or subordinate commanders to think that this COA or that one is disastrous, and express that feeling vehemently.

That's why we have a commander. He picks the best COA he sees. At that point, the entire command is expected to work together to accomplish that COA. The staff could debate forever, if you let it. It's the commander who brings focus, and whose words/guidance actually leads the command to do something.

So, for those who disagreed vehemently to the chosen COA, what are their options? They could try to get the commander to change their mind. They could resign.

But, what if they chose instead to wander through the staff tents, or the mess hall, telling everyone that they thought the CO was making a big mistake? Or, what if one of the subordinate commanders held a formation of his unit, at which he told that that he thought the chosen COA was wrong, and that he's not responsible if it fails?

Would you want to be part of a unit like that? Would you want to fight with an organization like that? I wouldn't.

If Congress passes a non-binding resolution on Iraq, it will be as if they are wandering through the mess tent, telling everyone standing in line that the plan they've been tasked to execute is wrong, that it will likely fail---but it's not the Congress's fault!

Congess knows this. NOTHING forces Congress to pass a resolution like this. Congress has already been heard. It's been given more than enough chances to provide alternatives in Iraq that offer a better chance for success; they have either failed or chosen not to do so.

As to Leon's concerns on whether it's worth surging in order to achieve a "democratic" Iraq , I'd respectfully submit that it is a fight worth continuing and reinforcing. If a democracy of some sort is possible in Iraq, then it's worth fighting some more for. American soldiers don't have to fight democracies very often. We've already expended so much in Iraq. If two years of additional effort--and that's all we're really talking about here, folks--will help us achieve some of our goals, then IMO it's worth it. If Congress has a better plan, I'd sure like to hear it.

But, if Iraq won't become a democracy, a stable country that doesn't threaten us is a viable second alternative.

No one else can do this but America's military. And, IMO there are still many worthwhile goals to achieve. So, we should press on. Regardless, we shouldn't do anything to undermine the effort in Iraq. Those who sign this resolution do just that. It's a contemptible thing to do.