A Proposal for the Democrats

by Andrew

I should first note that I am in complete agreement with hilzoy's proposal (and that my agreement is solely my own and does not represent an endorsement by my employer). And I sympathize with the Democrats who are gun shy about being unfairly accused of being against the troops because they want to end America's involvement in the Iraq war to a limited extent. It's never any fun being the guy who points out that the party's over and you can see the flashing blue lights from the front yard already, and even less fun when someone wrongfully claims you were the one who called the cops. So, to bolster the Democrats' credentials on national security (please note that I'm not saying the Democrats are weak on national security, only that they do have to fight that perception at times), I have a suggestion.

To minimize the surge and get U.S. troops out of Iraq, Congress needs to pass funding bills that deny the President to spend the money on troops in Iraq above a certain, downward-trending number. Setting this number would be done best by holding hearings (real ones, not made-for-TV ones) at which the Democrats ask a number of military experts for help developing a reasonable timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This will help to undermine claims the Democrats are trying to tell the President how to fight the war by establishing a glide path vetted by military experts. I do like Abrams' proposal as well, although that might be one to hold until after the White House has attempted to get around the initial restrictions Congress has set. This is what hilzoy has already laid out, of course, I'm just embellishing it a bit.

The next step is to get on the airwaves to establish why the Democrats are doing this: because the President doesn't have a plan to win the war in Iraq, and the Democrats aren't willing to allow American troops to continue to die just because the President isn't willing to fish or cut bait. The President's plan includes no metrics to measure success, no end state that tells us what we want to see as a result of this surge, and no alternatives if it fails (doubtless in part because there's no way to actually measure the plan on its own merits). Given the President's failure, the Democrats have no choice but to insist on the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to end America's never-ending stream of casualties without result.

The Democrats then need to make the defense budget for 2008 their first priority, and pack it full of the spending required to rebuild the military. That includes money for maintenance, for new vehicles like the Cougar and the M1117, other new equipment that would be of use in a future Iraq-style operation, money for medical care (physical and mental), and funds to train the force on its new equipment and doctrine. I realize that a lot of people won't like the idea of buying the military better counterinsurgency tools, but by doing so the Democrats will be able to demonstrate their seriousness about national security, and that they are backing up their complaints about the shortfalls in equipment during the war by acting to resolve those problems. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid ought to be able to go on national television and tell the American people that 'Hopefully American soldiers will never again have to fight this kind of battle. But if they do, the Democratic Party is making sure that they will be properly equipped and trained and that no American soldier will have to go into combat with body armor they purchased themselves or with scrap metal bolted onto their vehicles in lieu of vehicles built for the purpose of protecting them from IEDs.' They shouldn't do this all at once and break the budget, I'll note, but they need to do enough of it to demonstrate their seriousness about the issue. This will severely undercut any claims on the right that the Democrats are trying to undercut the troops, as they will have very concrete proof of just what they have done to support the troops.

This is not to suggest that this will make things easy for the Democrats. We leave in a demagogocracy, so the fact remains that people will make claims about each side regardless of the facts. But this plan puts the facts firmly in the Democrats' corner, particularly if they sell this issue as one of doing this because the President has not offered a plan for victory rather than a pullout because it's the best available option (although it may be). Democrats need to be sad that the President has pushed them to this move, and they need to at least look like they mean it. Americans don't like losing wars, and while I believe that by selling the plan in this manner they will garner reasonable respect for their plan, how it is handled will have a major effect on how people view it.

I provide this advice (which, like most advice, is worth precisely what you paid for it) not because I want us to leave Iraq right now. I shudder to think what will happen in Iraq when we leave, and there's no doubt in my mind it will be bad and it is our fault. But the President has failed in his duty to offer a plan that has any reasonable chance at victory. That leaves the Democrats with two unpalatable choices: allow the President to continue an aimless war, or cut it off. (I may be accused of creating a false choice here, but I think this is legitimate. Congress has only blunt instruments for adjusting how we fight a war.) It is not difficult for me to choose between those options.

Cross-posted at Andrew Olmsted.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Great post.

I might say that the Democrats have had the facts on their side before, and this hasn't helped, but still... great post.

[Matt Austern]

At this point I'd say that, as big a disaster as the Iraq war has turned out to be, the Democratic Congressional leadership has something even more important to worry about than ending the Iraq war: preventing Bush from starting a new war against Iran.

You think Bush couldn't possibly do something as obviously insane as starting a war against Iran when the US is already struggling with wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia? (Insert obligatory B5 quote here.) You might like to think so. But you'd better ask yourself: how sure are you that Bush will refrain from doing something just because it's obviously insane? What do you think is going to stop him?

[john miller]

Excellent poswt and Jes is cotrrect.

However, one other thing Bush has not said is that he plans on our ever leaving.

[Geoduck]

Just to repeat what Matt A. said: We're going to war with Iran, and the Democrats still flailing around looking for a response to Iraq isn't going to help.

[Andrew]

If and when we're at war with Iran, fine. But we're not at the moment, so I'd prefer to deal with what is happening, not what people think may happen.

[lily]

I printed out two copies of your post: one for Patty Murray and one for Maria Cantwell. Great minds think alike: some Democrat in Congress is floating the idea of tying Iraq funding to the meeting of benchmarks. I can't remember which one and I can't remember where I read it. I've read a zillion blogs today, so there's no telling. Anyway, very sensible advice.

[lily]

Acting on this now will help in regard to whatever Bush's planns are about iran. If the Dems act on this, Bush will know that htye will act on Iran. Also if the Dems buck this, it will establich a precedent inn the right direction and give them momentum in toward buckinng him on Iran, too.

[Steve]

The President's plan includes no metrics to measure success, no end state that tells us what we want to see as a result of this surge, and no alternatives if it fails

Oh, there's an alternative when it fails, all right.

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.

Most people have taken this to mean that if Maliki drops the ball, we will leave after all - which, of course, is not consistent with Bush's vow to stay no matter what.

What he really means is that if Maliki drops the ball, we'll find someone else to run the government who will get the job done. We've changed the regime once, we can do it again. For students of history, I call it the "1965 Strategy."

[dmbeaster]

Excellent post.

I don't think the budget mechanism works as efficiently as you think. Realize that you are going to create a crisis similar to the budget crisis under Clinton. Congress passes budgets limiting Iraq, and Bush vetoes them. Will Republicans vote to override? Who will blink first as the overall war effort is starved for funds?

There is a lot being written about this, and I have yet to see a clean explanation on how it works.

Setting this number would be done best by holding hearings (real ones, not made-for-TV ones) at which the Democrats ask a number of military experts for help developing a reasonable timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

The only experts who could testify would have to be retired officers -- can any serving officer take the stand and testify to a strategy contrary to that being undertaken by his commander?

I also imagine that this will result in a considerable politicization of the military. Will military officers that support Bush testify to opposite opinions?

Unfortunately, the whole processs is going to be messy and ugly. But the suggestions in this post are great.

[Dantheman]

I second dmbeaster's comments. This will get way worse first before it gets better (and who said it was going to get better).

And just because Democrats have the majority, doesn't mean they can hold their own caucus together on such an unusual step as Andrew suggested, much less gather necessary Republican votes to override a veto. And even then, when the Decider uses his supposedly unlimited wartime powers to counteract the limits imposed by Congress, can we find 5 Supreme Court Justices to say he can't?

[Dantheman]

And, I might add, by the time the Supreme Court decides the issue, January 20, 2009 will have certainly come and gone.

[Jeff]

In a couple of months we'll know whether the plan is working, according to General Pace and Secretary Gates. Why not wait until then? Currently 7,000 troops are on the way to Bahgdad. The rest won't be coming until months down the line, if it's decided they're needed. I say we wait and see the results. The Iraqi government says they're serious about cracking down on going into shi'ite neighborhoods and cracking down on those shi'ite criminals and militia. Supposedly they came up with parts of the plan. Let's see if it works. And if not, then put pressure.

Although I don't think the Democrats could propose any legislation that could prevent those 7,000 troops going to Baghdad right now. So in a way it's a bit irrelevant if we waited or not.

[Anarch]

That includes money for maintenance, for new vehicles like the Cougar and the M1117, other new equipment that would be of use in a future Iraq-style operation, money for medical care (physical and mental), and funds to train the force on its new equipment and doctrine.

As an amusing sidenote, I think the day that I truly convinced my (RL) conservative friends that I was "serious about the military" was when I suggested slashing the budgets for sexy new military systems -- including missile defense, sorry Slarti -- and farming that money into low-key, arguably low-tech, non-sexy systems like next-generation machine guns, body armor, APCs and the like, as well as better training/retraining facilities for fourth-generation warfare. Helped that most of my conservative friends had friends in the infantry, too.

[Slartibartfast]

"next-generation machine guns"? Got something in mind, here? Body armor...well, I'd suggest that we need to make it a lot lighter, and consider cooling as well. Pretty soon we'll be in Forever War world, either way.

I'm not really all that averse to cutting missile defense funding, Anarch, I just happen to know a bit more about the subject than the average bear, and because of the rarity of that knowing-more feeling, I like to bask in it when it comes up.

Fleet defense I'd ixnay on the undingcutsfay, because I think it's a mistake to have a fleet and not defend it, and I'd be less than eager to cut funding for theater defense. On the other hand, I'm a little leery of emplacing Patriot batteries all over the world just because we can. Which is all just to say: I'm not averse to discussing reductions in MDA funding.

What I do now, I think is worthwhile, and I'm probably less apt to want to discuss what's good and what's not good. Basically I work on targeting systems that let you see and target things a long way away. Think of it as a sniper scope for a strike aircraft.

[Sean]

Outstanding post Andrew.

I wish I was more optimistic about the chances that the Democratic Congress can do anything to force Bush to do anything he doesn't want to do. Certainly nothing without a Supreme Court showdown, but I wonder even then if Bush wouldn't find a way to weasel out of complying.

[hilzoy]

Andrew: this is, as everyone has said, a great post. You've probably seen the latest in the Democrats' plans, but if not:

One:

"Rather than try to restrict funds for the troops (which he sees as a political blunder that would delight Republicans), Emanuel instead favors a proposal by Rep. John Murtha to set strict standards for readiness -- which would make it hard to finance the troop surge in Iraq without beefing up the military as a whole. The idea is to position the Democrats as friends of the military, even as they denounce Bush's Iraq policy."

Two:

"When he receives the Bush Administration's $100 billion supplemental spending request for Iraq on February 5, Murtha says "they'll have to justify every cent they want." He'll insist that no money be allocated for an escalation unless the military can meet normal readiness levels. "We should not spend money to send people overseas unless they replenish the strategic reserve," Murtha says. He expects to have one hundred and twenty days to act before the Administration deploys the second phase of additional troops to Iraq. "If he wants to veto the bill," Murtha says of Bush, "he won't have any money."

Asked whether Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi supports his plans, Murtha responded: "Absolutely.""

[Kent]

Great post.

"demagogocracy" -- by far the best new neologism I've heard in months. Thanks.