Support The Troops. Block The Surge.

by hilzoy

To no one's surprise, President Bush announced that he plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. There are lots of good responses to Bush's speech. I'm not going to add one. I'm just going to say this:

As I said yesterday, more or less no one outside the administration and the American Enterprise Institute thinks it's a good idea. Not the military, not Maliki, not the Iraq Study Group, not the American People; as of a couple of months ago, not the President's National Security Advisor or Gen. Petraeus. That's a pretty solid lineup of opposition.

Moreover, most of them don't just think it won't help; they think it will make matters worse. And, as Fred Kaplan notes, theres no Plan B:

"But here we come to this speech's most dreadful shortcoming: Bush's failure to outline any backup plan at all if his plan comes to naught. Worse still, he strongly suggested that he will resist such a plan. A realistic backup plan would rely on region-wide diplomacy to keep the conflagration of all-out civil war from spreading across the Middle East.

Halfway into the speech, it seemed for a moment that Bush might address this issue. "Succeeding in Iraq also requires … stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge," he said, a task that "begins with addressing Iran and Syria." But then, instead of calling for, say, talks with those countries, Bush said that their regimes have provided material support to the insurgents. "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces," the president warned. "We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Really? All we can muster for Iraq is a paltry 20,000 extra troops; even they will accomplish little without massive infusions from a dubious Iraqi military and miraculous political breakthroughs from a faltering Iraqi government—and President Bush, at such a desperate moment, talks about expanding the war to Iran and Syria? It's shiveringly scary."

The Democrats seem to be growing a spine, though:

"Senior House Democrats said yesterday that they will attempt to derail funding for President Bush's proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, setting up what could become the most significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over military policy since the Vietnam War. (...)

The striking new approach took shape yesterday morning during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), invoked Martin Luther King Jr. as she urged her members against timidity, members who were there said. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), a quiet, hawkish supporter of the war, stunned many of his colleagues when he came out strenuously against Bush's proposal and suggested the war is no longer militarily winnable.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense and the party's leading voice for withdrawing troops, is to report back to Appropriations Committee members today on hearings and legislative language that could stop an escalation of troops, said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), a member of Murtha's subcommittee.

Those plans could attach so many conditions and benchmarks to the funds that it would be all but impossible to spend the money without running afoul of the Congress. "Twenty-one thousand five hundred troops ought to have 21,500 strings attached to them," said House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.).

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said Democratic leaders have made no decision to hold back funds, but he added: "We are not going to give the president a blank check. We will subject any proposal to escalate the war to harsh scrutiny, and we will set benchmarks he has to attain to get that money.""

And:

"Democrats launched an immediate counterattack against President Bush's new Iraq strategy Wednesday. Rep. John Murtha vowed to try to block Bush's plan from his perch as chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. (...)

Specifically, Murtha, a former Marine and Vietnam War veteran from Pennsylvania, said he'll focus on the administration's supplemental spending request for Iraq, which is expected to be as high as $160 billion.

Murtha says he will hold extensive hearings on the budget request. "We're going to make them justify every cent," he said. He also said he may use the funding bill to hamstring the efforts to add more troops to Iraq.

Among the options Murtha said he's considering: barring the redeployment to Iraq of troops who haven't had the recommended one-year respite in the United States and prohibiting those who are in Iraq from having their tours of duty extended. (...)

Murtha said that by inserting language into the administration's request for more money to fund the Iraq war, he can avoid a Bush veto. Murtha said legislation introduced Tuesday by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that would require congressional approval of Bush's plan could be vetoed with little consequence. If Congress adds conditions to the Iraq funding bill, Bush will have to accept them or cut off money for the troops. "The supplemental is where the money is," Murtha said. "Nothing else means anything. They can veto anything else.""

Personally, I'd add this, from Paul Abrams at the Huffington Post:

"I would like to offer an additional suggestion: do NOT pass the Omnibus Budget for 2006 as is, but rather exempt the White House budget. Put the White House on a quarterly budget, and set conditions to trigger the next quarter's funding. Those should include complying with Congressional requests for hearing participation and document production. They should also include recognizing the authority of Congress to set broad limits on our military engagement."

If the Democrats are going to step up to the plate on this one, we need to help them.

* First, if you oppose a surge, send letters or emails to your Senators and Representatives. Let them know what you think of the President's plan, and what steps you think they should take in response to it.

* Second, the Deomcratic Party website has a tool that you can use to write letters to the editor. If you enter your zip code, it takes you to a page where you can compose a letter, and choose which local, regional, and national papers to send it to. It defaults to sending a letter based on talking points, which I think is a bit lame, but you can use it to send your own.

* Third, MoveOn and a number of organizations are holding vigils against the surge tonight. You can find one in your area here.

* Fourth, if there's one reason why Democrats are worried about doing things like this, it's that they do not want to be seen either as weak on defense or as not supporting the troops. Those of us who oppose the surge need to go out of our way to make it clear to people that this is wrong. We care about our country's interests; that's why we opposed the war in Iraq. We care about the troops; that's why we don't want them to be killed for nothing. (Note the 'for nothing' part. I have a lot of respect for the willingness of people in the military to risk their lives for our country. But, as I've said before, I think that just makes it all the more incumbent on us, as part of "the country", not to ask that sacrifice of them unless it's actually necessary. Fighting for their interests is our side of the bargain, and it's by far the easiest. It's so obviously the least we can do.)

The more people come to realize that many of us are not the mythical liberals who inhabit John Hinderaker's fantasy world, but actual normal people who think that Iraq is a disaster, the more willing they will be to consider the President's surge on the merits, not as a gesture in the culture wars. And the more people think about it that way, the easier it will be for Democrats to stand up for what's right.

They need to grow a spine -- and, as I said, there's some indication they might be doing so -- but we need to have their back.

No one should lose a life, or a spouse, or a father or mother, or a limb, or sanity, for the sake of George W. Bush's vanity. No one.

Speaking for myself: if I don't do whatever I can to stop this -- however little it might be -- I don't see how I will be able to hold my head up. As I said, it's the least I can do.

Comments

[Ugh]

As I said yesterday, more or less everyone outside the administration and the American Enterprise Institute thinks it's a good idea.

I think you're missing "not" somewhere.

[hilzoy]

Ugh: eek!

[John Thullen]

Ugh,

Hilzoy meant to write that "more or less everyone, from the President's point of view as he gazes down at Barney, outside the administration and the American Enterprise Institute, thinks it's a good idea. The latter two think it's a great idea, while Barney is wagging his tail because he just wants to go outside for a shrubbery check.

That said, may I extend the hope that this latest Bush plan works, because Kaplan's words scare me.

[John Thullen]

If, somehow, the Democrats shut off funds for the surge, I expect the White House will retaliate with a nearly total government shutdown.

Which brings me to my latest crackpot theory:

While everyone searches for the reason behind the War in Iraq, I believe it was a way for Bush and the far Right of the Republican Party to sequester tax dollars away from the rest of the government. There is more than one enemy targeted here.

Well, I'll work on that some more. Time for a cocktail.

[Ugh]

Ulp via Ulp.

[Annamal]

There's also this problem that you might have to deal with, surge or no surge

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6251167.stm

Apparently not an acttual declaration of war the way it would be if it was an embassy rather than a consulate but still pretty provocative.

Is it just me or is picking a fight with Iran a really really stupid idea right at this point in time?

[Ugh]

Just swong by the Lafayette demonstration across from the White House. Was offered a candle but said no thank you* (had to come back to work). My first demonstration!

*Was that you KCinDC?

[Ugh]

"swung by", even

[cleek]

Is it just me or is picking a fight with Iran a really really stupid idea right at this point in time?

when has this administration ever done anything that wasn't double-take-stupid ?

[Bril]

Funny, how all that same logic applies to what Bush has done the last couple of years, but was deemed wrong by all the intellectuals. Now he does what you always wanted and its still wrong. BDS is rampant.

Forever we have been hearing about more troops being needed. Now that you have it you don't want it. Hypocrisy seems to know no boundries.

No big deal... I'm sure the troops will "feel" supported.

I just have to talk to my buddies and tell them that you all really do care. For some unknown reason those who are fighting don't feel supported.

Must be those guys Kerry was talking about. Those guys don't know when they are or aren't being supported.

Go figure...

I'm not sure that it's a spine that needs to be grown, but taking off the Bush blinders could be helpful.

[Steve]

Bril will trot out this same argument when Bush sends the troops to invade Iran. "You moonbats always wanted Bush to leave Iraq... and now he has! Are you ever satisfied?"

[Pooh]

It has been said that a dog understands time in only 2 increments: right now, and forever. Going by Bril's example, this might not be limited to canines.

[Phil]

Several years ago -- back in 1995, to be exact -- I had some car trouble, in that the car I owned at the time died. It had a complete mechanical failure, and I couldn't drive it at all anymore. Nor could I afford to fix it. And, as it happened, I still owed money on the car. Money that I didn't have and couldn't pay. So, a repo company came and took away my unworking car.

Now, 12 years later, I make a BUNCH of money, and I can totally afford to fix AND keep that car. And so I called the finance company, and it turns out they don't even WANT my money now. What a bunch of hypocrites. They sure wanted my money when it would have accomplished something, but now that it won't, they turn up their nose at it!

This analogy might be instructive for the non-hydrocephalics in the audience.

[matttbastard]

Perfect - Bush now has Barney, Laura and bril in his corner. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, of course. On to Tehran and Damascus!

(Do Chuck Hagel, Sam Brownback, Susan Collins, etc also suffer from "BDS", bril?)

[John Thullen]

"Hypocrisy seems to know no boundaries."

I'm a One-Worlder for exactly this reason. This is the one thing all of us mortals have in common.

Hypocrisy will unite us. Make Hypocrisy, not War, brother! Hypocrisy will set you free, my brothers and sisters in Hypocrisy!
Hypocrisy is all you need! Give Hypocrisy a chance! War is over if you are a Hypocrite. God is Hypocrisy.

[Slartibartfast]

I think I've already responded to Bril's accusations of hypocrisy here.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for a response, because I'm pretty sure Bril doesn't bother reading what people have to say. Even the first time.

[KCinDC]

[Argh, I wasn't able to comment on ObWi at work today. For some reason typepad.com wasn't responding, so things always timed out.]

*Was that you KCinDC?

It might have been, Ugh, but there were eight or so of us handing out candles and signs. There's a not-great photo (from last week) here, and I was wearing the same coat and scarf.

Perfect - Bush now has Barney, Laura and bril in his corner. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, of course.

Matt, you're assuming that Bril isn't Laura or Lieberman or Bush himself -- or Barney, since as we all know, on the Internet no one knows ...