Principles

Kimberley Strassel has a very interesting op-ed in today's Opinion Journal. In it, she actually praises Russ Feingold for at least having some principles about his anti-war position. She also points out that that principled stand has turned over the rock that a lot of the other Senators have been hiding under.

Mr. Feingold's reward for honesty was to preside over what might have been the least-attended hearing so far in the Iraq debate. And those of his Senate colleagues who did bother to show up looked like they couldn't wait to hit an exit door. "If Congress doesn't stop this war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will," declared Mr. Feingold. Ted Kennedy–one of two Democrats who put in an appearance–could be seen shifting uncomfortably in his seat.

That's because Sen. Feingold is coming uncomfortably close to unmasking the political charade playing on the Senate stage. Critics of President Bush want an unhappy public to see them taking action on the war. So we have the Biden-Warner compromise resolution condemning the plan to increase the forces. There is also talk of capping troops, of requiring redeployments to Afghanistan, of benchmarks and progress reports.

All these proposals have one overriding thing in common: While they may hurt the war effort, none are significant enough for Congress to take responsibility when Iraq is irrevocably lost. This is President Bush's war, and his critics won't take any step that puts them on the hook as well. Sen. Feingold's sin is to suggest that Congress do something more than play politics.

It's a delicate high-wire act, made more complex by the opponents' need to reassure the public that their actions, which will surely encourage the enemy and deflate troop morale, won't, in fact, encourage the enemy or deflate troop morale. This has led to the spectacle of the Senate one day unanimously voting to confirm Gen. David Petraeus, and the next taking up resolutions that would kneecap his plan for success. John Warner and Chuck Hagel are all for the troops, just not for letting them win. Very courageous indeed.

Please read the rest, it is pretty scathing toward the bad political theater that is going on in the Senate right now. I am no more a fan of Feingold than I am of John McCain, but at least both of those Senators are standing on their principles on the war. They are not wavering about trying to gauge public opinion and provide themselves political cover no matter what the cost is to the troops or to the long-range interests of this nation.

The Senate, rather than trying to play duck and cover, should instead be seriously considering the long range implications of a defeat in Iraq. And a "redeployment" is a defeat no matter how much lipstick is plastered onto it. The sin of Russ Feingold, as Strassel points out, is that he has made it harder for the people in the Senate who prefer theater to actually having to stand by their decisions and lead rather than follow the mood of the public.