Iraq war fund conundrum

It appears to be a conundrum, for the Democrats, that is, and a bit of a godsend for the Republicans, at least if you listen to that rightist, conservative gang on Fox News.

If the new majority in the US Congress thought it would be an easy ride to revocation of the 2002 resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to fight the war in Iraq, they were gravely mistaken. Now, it seems, the very preeminence of the Democrats as the new majority party in Congress hangs in the balance.

The formal dispute began in the US Congress when Bush delivered his State of the Union address to Congress several weeks ago and asked for additional funding for his plan to "surge," i.e. increase, US troop strength in Iraq. His ultimate purpose, he admitted, was for US forces to disengage but not now, not yet.

Although things have not been going well at all for the US in Iraq — the word "quagmire" is beginning to be heard oftener and oftener these days — the US military is not about to pack up and leave. Not too long ago, the Pentagon, then led by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, kept insisting that the US was winning the war, and that the new US-trained Iraqi Army was growing in strength, capability and reliability day by day.

More important, the Pentagon stood fast on its insistence it could get the job done without need of any increase in troop strength, this in the face of widespread criticism that the troops in the field were being saddled with responsibilities far in excess of what their actual deployment could deliver. The home front was getting restless as casualty figures mounted, December and January marking the highest number of battle casualties.

Bush, however, adamant in his determination to remain The Decider despite the loss of Republican control of Congress in last November’s off-year’s elections, jutted jaw firmly forward, chucked the Iraq Study Group’s phased withdrawal proposal, and went the opposite way.

The US President asked for a "surge" in US troop strength in Iraq, refused to discuss withdrawal, phased or otherwise, and told the Iraqi government that any future reduction of US involvement would depend entirely on how fast the new Iraqi Army could assume the duties of providing credible, long-term security in that country.

If that sounded like another open-ended commitment, it certainly was, to many legislators in the US Congress. The Democrats, having plumbed the waters of domestic public opinion and concluding that popular sentiment was for immediate but phased and "honorable" disengagement, decided that the way to go was to turn off the faucet on funding for the military action in Iraq. They may have seriously miscalculated.

In the House, the best the Democratic majority could produce was a "non-binding" resolution expressing disapproval of Bush’s planned troop increase. But a plan proposed by Democrat Rep. John Murtha, a known Bush critic on the powerful defense committee, to put strict conditions on financing for the war has stalled. Fellow Democrats call the Murtha plan "as risky as catching a falling knife."

The stakes have become higher in the Senate with Senator Joseph Lieberman, who lost the Connecticut Democratic Party but won last November as an independent candidate, openly breaking with his fellow Democrats and supporting Bush’s Iraq policy. Speculation is rife that he will become a Republican if, as the New York Times says, "Democrats go too far in trying to rein in Bush."

If Lieberman switches parties, the 51-49 balance in favor of the Democrats tilts in favor of the Republicans. Recall that Lieberman, who was denied the Democratic nomination, was nevertheless elected as an independent. However, he has retained his Democratic Party affiliation and used to "caucus," or meet regularly, with Democrats. One cause for alarm is that he reportedly has missed several recent weekly caucus lunches that are intended to cement party loyalty in the Senate.

Time Magazine calls Lieberman "the Senate’s one-man tipping point." Further, warns Time: "If he were to jump ship, the ensuing shift of power to Republicans would scramble the politics of the war in Iraq, undercut the Democrats’ national agenda and potentially weaken their hopes for the White House in 2008."

But in that same current issue of Time (March 5, 2007), an opinion column by Michael Kinsey argues that it is time for Americans to end the myth that opposition to the war is a betrayal of US soldiers. That "myth" seems to be behind the disinclination of US legislators to back any proposal either to shut down funding for the Iraq war or to attach stringent conditions, as well as a firm timetable, to such financing.

Democrats and Republicans who might instinctively want to support cessation of financial support fear being portrayed as being unsupportive of the troops, a sure ticket to oblivion in the polls, starting with the presidential race in 2008.

But as Kinsley observes: "Criticism of the war surely is dispiriting to the soldiers who are engaged in it. If you’re killing and risking death in a miserable, faraway desert, you ought to be able to believe that your sacrifice is for a worthy cause. But whose fault is it if that belief is hard to sustain? Is it the fault of the people who note that the cause is not worthy? Or is it the fault of the people who sent American soldiers into this distant desert in an unworthy cause?"

Kinsley concedes that the cause was actually worthy in theory, and he dumps on war critics who refuse to give Bush this much credit. "His intentions were noble," Kinsley insists, "however naïve and pigheaded." But, he also concludes, the war was a mistake and "as everyone comes to realize it was a mistake, continuing it becomes something much worse than a mistake." (To be continued)