Thursday, May 3, 2007
Go Pragmatic, or Symbolic?
Because symbolic is all another supplemental Defense Appropriations bill will be. And the delay in funds could this time really hurt. I prefer the Hoyer approach to that of Edwards who suggested sending the same bill back to W over and over again. That makes great political theater but a delay in those funds beyond June could do real damage. Democrats can show that they are pragmatic by accepting that Bush will veto a too strongly caveat ed bill, but even Republicans are not going to give him the carte-blanche (in W-speak that is "clean bill", that is how "commander guy's" do it.) Besides, the time is right to set benchmarks with financial consequences. Even W embraced the benchmark of settling how oil revenues would be split. The preliminary agreement by the "Iraqi" Parliament has fallen apart as al-Sadr has lost control his Shia faction and Sunni's are retreating from government participation. Kurds have no reason to deal - they want Kirkiuk and will gladly let the south go. But as all this unfolds, the "Iraqi" Parliament is going away for two months. We are going to be surging while these ineffectual SOB's are out plotting for two months?!? Stay the course! All is Well!
So we are training forces for the security of "Iraq" while the "government" disintegrates. What will become of these trainees? With no powerful government in the current environment, these are future combatants in the Iraqi battlefield. That battlefield is already more than a battle for the nation (notion?) of "Iraq", but the site of the proxy war being slowly pursued by the Iranians and Saudi/other Sunni influences in the region. Catholic/Protestant hate was really bad. Shia/Sunni hatred is the modern equivalent on steroids. Democrats should be satisfied with having made their point and not squander the chance to take away Executive power from a party out of control and in an identity crisis. (These Republicans are like the Democrats of '72.) Any withdrawal will be messy, but the sort that would come of (more) under-trained troops and parts/equipment shortages would be far worse, and would re-brand the Dems the party of "weak-on-defense" for another generation. Not worth it. Take the Hoyer approach and make W swallow benchmarks with financial consequences. That will mean working with Republicans who are separating from Bush, but their numbers are growing. The far left will accept nothing less than sending another veto-bait bill back the W, and that is not a recipe for retaining power. It would be sad to blow a shot like the 2008 Whit House and (maybe) both Houses of Congress just to throw a legislative temper tantrum now. Deep breath.
|
