The Democrats and War Funding
Robert Fantina
May 29, 2007
As might have been expected, the Democratic-controlled Congress caved in to the president, and sent him a bill funding the Iraqi war and without any withdrawal date. What’s worse, Democrats are pointing to their ‘victory;’ they are saying that this is the first war-spending bill sent to Mr. Bush that is not a ‘blank check.’
In pointing to the conditions that are established by this new bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mentioned provisions that establish standards the Iraqi’s will be held to in the creation of a more democratic society. Monies from the U.S. for reconstruction aid would be tied to progress toward those goals. However, and this is a big ‘however, Mr. Bush can spend the money regardless of Iraq’s progress, or lack thereof, in meeting those goals.
One wonders what the outcome would have been had Congress not buckled under to the ‘commander guy.’ Funding for the war would have dried up. For a limited period of time Mr. Bush could move money from some other source, but before long there would have been nothing left for the war machine.
In that case, what would have happened? One possible scenario is that the U.S. would have begun to withdraw from Iraq. It is unreasonable to think of any other alternative. Surely American soldiers would not have been mandated to remain in the battlefield without food, ammunition, etc.
Another possible outcome would have been the emergence of another country, possibly Britain, stepping forward and taking the lead in monitoring Iraq’s civil war. This is somewhat unlikely, with the near departure of Prime Minister Tony Blair, America’s own Yankee Poodle. His apparent successor is not expected to fawn over Mr. Bush to nearly the same degree.
Perhaps, with the U.S. Congress pulling the plug on war financing, the United Nations might have stepped in. Congress might then have been willing to refinance some money for the war if it were being conducted under the auspices of the U.N., which has not been interested in rescuing America from itself under current circumstances.
If the war were no longer funded, perhaps the Iraqis themselves would have found a solution. It is likely that this is what will eventually happen anyway, but it might have been expedited had the U.S. Congress showed some spine.
Republicans in Congress have been saying since early in the year that Mr. Bush’s ‘new way forward’ in Iraq, known alternately as the ‘surge,’ the ‘augmentation’ or by its plain old name, ‘escalation,’ must be given a chance to work. They say that progress must be seen by September or they will need to know what ‘Plan B’ is.
The American public already voted for Plan B – withdrawal from Iraq - in November of 2006, when they handed control of Congress to the Democratic Party after years of Republican mismanagement and deception. That Congress has dropped the ball, and failed miserably to demonstrate the leadership the country expected, does not invalidate Plan B. Delaying it until September, when according to all indications no significant progress will be shown, only prolongs the suffering.
One can image the spin that will occur in September. The ‘surge’ has not had enough time to succeed. Or perhaps it was not large enough. Perhaps some minimal progress in areas that are heavily populated with American soldiers will be seen and announced, while increasing violence in other areas of Iraq will be downplayed. Perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will announce, as then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did so long ago about Vietnam, that ‘peace is at hand,’ and all that’s required is continued patience by American citizens.
What one can predict with a fair degree of accuracy is that, regardless of how badly things are going in Iraq in September, the Republican Party members of Congress will, in perhaps somewhat reduced numbers, stick with Mr. Bush and vow to give the ‘surge’ some more time. The Democratic Party members will, after much discussion, debate and hand-wringing, decide to ‘support the troops’ some more, by ensuring that they remain in the middle of an increasingly-violent civil war. Rather than demonstrating anything even closely resembling statesmanship, the vast number of people currently vying for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations, with few exceptions, will blather endlessly about the war, taking opposing opinions but reaching the same tragic conclusion: keep funding it.
One might think that the role of a representative government is to represent the will of the people. Certainly, no one expects the government to change policy with each shifting political poll. However, periodically there is one poll that generally counts: voting (the 2000 presidential election being the most recent, notable exception). During these events, the citizenry is allowed to express their preference for candidates and policies, and in many cases (one need not go into detail about Florida, the Supreme Court and 2000 here), their will is manifest and carried into practice. In 2006, the war-mongering Republican Party was reduced to minority status; the peace-platform Democrats were installed in power.
It is not enough to play lip service to wanting peace; Congress, under the control of the Democrats, talked long and hard about the need to extricate the U.S. from Iraq’s civil war, and then voted to prolong that participation. It is important that the Democratic Party position itself for victory in the 2008 presidential election, but not at the expense of its own identity. The idea of a two-party system implies that those parties will not be carbon copies of each other. What counts is not rhetoric, but legislation. The Democrats’ talk of peace and votes for war does not differentiate them from the Republicans in any significant way. It is long past time for the Democratic Party to take control of the debate, and remove from Mr. Bush and his cohorts the bizarre concept that ‘supporting the troops’ means having a war for them. Until they do so, America will continue to sink in the quicksand of Iraq’s tragic civil war.
In pointing to the conditions that are established by this new bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mentioned provisions that establish standards the Iraqi’s will be held to in the creation of a more democratic society. Monies from the U.S. for reconstruction aid would be tied to progress toward those goals. However, and this is a big ‘however, Mr. Bush can spend the money regardless of Iraq’s progress, or lack thereof, in meeting those goals.
One wonders what the outcome would have been had Congress not buckled under to the ‘commander guy.’ Funding for the war would have dried up. For a limited period of time Mr. Bush could move money from some other source, but before long there would have been nothing left for the war machine.
In that case, what would have happened? One possible scenario is that the U.S. would have begun to withdraw from Iraq. It is unreasonable to think of any other alternative. Surely American soldiers would not have been mandated to remain in the battlefield without food, ammunition, etc.
Another possible outcome would have been the emergence of another country, possibly Britain, stepping forward and taking the lead in monitoring Iraq’s civil war. This is somewhat unlikely, with the near departure of Prime Minister Tony Blair, America’s own Yankee Poodle. His apparent successor is not expected to fawn over Mr. Bush to nearly the same degree.
Perhaps, with the U.S. Congress pulling the plug on war financing, the United Nations might have stepped in. Congress might then have been willing to refinance some money for the war if it were being conducted under the auspices of the U.N., which has not been interested in rescuing America from itself under current circumstances.
If the war were no longer funded, perhaps the Iraqis themselves would have found a solution. It is likely that this is what will eventually happen anyway, but it might have been expedited had the U.S. Congress showed some spine.
Republicans in Congress have been saying since early in the year that Mr. Bush’s ‘new way forward’ in Iraq, known alternately as the ‘surge,’ the ‘augmentation’ or by its plain old name, ‘escalation,’ must be given a chance to work. They say that progress must be seen by September or they will need to know what ‘Plan B’ is.
The American public already voted for Plan B – withdrawal from Iraq - in November of 2006, when they handed control of Congress to the Democratic Party after years of Republican mismanagement and deception. That Congress has dropped the ball, and failed miserably to demonstrate the leadership the country expected, does not invalidate Plan B. Delaying it until September, when according to all indications no significant progress will be shown, only prolongs the suffering.
One can image the spin that will occur in September. The ‘surge’ has not had enough time to succeed. Or perhaps it was not large enough. Perhaps some minimal progress in areas that are heavily populated with American soldiers will be seen and announced, while increasing violence in other areas of Iraq will be downplayed. Perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will announce, as then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did so long ago about Vietnam, that ‘peace is at hand,’ and all that’s required is continued patience by American citizens.
What one can predict with a fair degree of accuracy is that, regardless of how badly things are going in Iraq in September, the Republican Party members of Congress will, in perhaps somewhat reduced numbers, stick with Mr. Bush and vow to give the ‘surge’ some more time. The Democratic Party members will, after much discussion, debate and hand-wringing, decide to ‘support the troops’ some more, by ensuring that they remain in the middle of an increasingly-violent civil war. Rather than demonstrating anything even closely resembling statesmanship, the vast number of people currently vying for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations, with few exceptions, will blather endlessly about the war, taking opposing opinions but reaching the same tragic conclusion: keep funding it.
One might think that the role of a representative government is to represent the will of the people. Certainly, no one expects the government to change policy with each shifting political poll. However, periodically there is one poll that generally counts: voting (the 2000 presidential election being the most recent, notable exception). During these events, the citizenry is allowed to express their preference for candidates and policies, and in many cases (one need not go into detail about Florida, the Supreme Court and 2000 here), their will is manifest and carried into practice. In 2006, the war-mongering Republican Party was reduced to minority status; the peace-platform Democrats were installed in power.
It is not enough to play lip service to wanting peace; Congress, under the control of the Democrats, talked long and hard about the need to extricate the U.S. from Iraq’s civil war, and then voted to prolong that participation. It is important that the Democratic Party position itself for victory in the 2008 presidential election, but not at the expense of its own identity. The idea of a two-party system implies that those parties will not be carbon copies of each other. What counts is not rhetoric, but legislation. The Democrats’ talk of peace and votes for war does not differentiate them from the Republicans in any significant way. It is long past time for the Democratic Party to take control of the debate, and remove from Mr. Bush and his cohorts the bizarre concept that ‘supporting the troops’ means having a war for them. Until they do so, America will continue to sink in the quicksand of Iraq’s tragic civil war.
Print
Email
