But It Is A Way To Lose
Charles Krauthammer looks at the two separate approaches the Democratic party politicians are floating as methods to defund the war. One is the execrable approach proposed by Unindicted Abscam Co-Conspirator John Murtha. The other, championed by Carl Levin in the Senate would completely tie the hands of commanders in the field and make it impossible for them to actually fight a war. One cuts off funds to the troops, the other cuts off ability to fight. Krauthammer says it is no way to win a war. But it sure is a way to lose one.
Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. But Democrats will not, because it is politically dangerous. Instead, they are seeking other ways, clever ways. The House is pursuing a method, developed by Murtha and deemed "ingenious" by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates — no funds.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motive for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet — "We have analyzed this, and we have come to the conclusion that it can't be done," he told MoveCongress.org — in order to make the continued prosecution of the war difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.
But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.
Of course, the Democrats believe the war cannot be won. But if that's the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off funds. They shouldn't micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it also makes the Democrats' "the war is lost" mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Read what Krauthammer has to say about Levin's approach, which is actually going to make it more deadly for troops and commanders in the field. What neither of the approaches take into account is what damaging precedents are being set that will surely come back to haunt a president from the Democratic party in the future. All the Senate Democrats who are cheerfully running around bashing one another over which campaign contributer insulted what candidate when should consider the fact that they are running for an office that they are also actively engaged in diminishing. Not only is this no way to end a war, it is no way to alter the political system.
By bird dog, Friday, 23 February , 2007 @ 6:52 am
They must construct a failure in Iraq to win in 08. I believe that they take that extrememly seriously. A success would be terrible for them. And a success, however defined, is difficult enough in such a screwy country.
By cfaller96, Friday, 23 February , 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Who are “they” Bird Dog? Are you referring to the left wing generally, which includes (IMO) me? If so, then I challenge you to prove that I want to “construct a failure” in Iraq. Prove that success would be “terrible” for me.
Or somebody else specific, I don’t care. My point is that you shouldn’t overgeneralize about a certain group, especially when you imply that that group wants failure. It’s called a strawman argument, and it’s offensive.
Talk to and about specific people, don’t just spit on “them.”