Informed Speculation

This post a couple of weeks ago got me in some trouble with my more left-leaning readership, largely because I titled it “The Myth of ‘Bipartisan’ War Opposition”. I freely admit that the title was a bit of attention-grabbing hyperbole, but the point I wanted to make was, I think, salient. Let me quote from the post:

Opponents of the Iraq War are quite fond of pointing to lone Republicans standing in opposition to our policy in Iraq as proof that Bush faces ‘bipartisan’ opposition to his plans. This is no more accurate than pointing to Joe Lieberman as proof the Democrats support the war.

It’s become a given in the ongoing narrative of the war that the war is under attack from all corners, and I feel this is a false simplification. It’s true, there are a growing number of Republicans uneasy with the war, as shown by this story today:

Senate Republicans who earlier this week helped block deliberations on a resolution opposing President Bush’s new troop deployments in Iraq changed course yesterday and vowed to use every tactic at their disposal to ensure a full and open debate.

In a letter distributed yesterday evening to Senate leaders, John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and five other GOP supporters of the resolution threatened to attach their measure to any bill sent to the floor in the coming weeks. Noting that the war is the “most pressing issue of our time,” the senators declared: “We will explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate.”

But this is largely an exercise in political cover. Though some, such as Hagel, no doubt oppose the war, others want to be ‘on the record’ expressing some qualms for their 2008 bids for reelection.

How do I know this? Because there is no real attempt being made here to stop the surge. The surge is already going on. Troops have been deployed, and they will continue to be deployed. Furthermore, there is no way that Congress can ‘selectively’ stop the funding for the surge alone. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition.

Some have said Congress could ‘cap out’ spending, but realistically, it would be impossible to do this politically. How can you leave our the needs of our troops in harm’s way unfunded? Because of the power of the presidency, these Congressional non-binding resolutions are meaningless charades.

Yes, the war is increasingly unpopular, even with Republicans…and yes, there are Republicans who truly oppose both the war and the surge (and a great many who want to straddle that line, just be covered in either direction). Ultimately, both the Senate and the House will pass resolutions opposing the troop increase, I have no doubt, but the surge is a fact now that can’t be derailed.

Now, where things will get really interesting is if there has been no improvement in Baghdad by the end of the summer (or, God forbid, if conditions even worsen). At that point, you may very well see a true bipartisan groundswell to commit to beginning the brutally painful process of withdrawal. I hope that day doesn’t come to pass.

To sum it up: I’m being a little too coy in denying that there is bipartisan opposition to the war and the surge. It does exist, sure…but the dam has yet to break. There are some ominous cracks, but it’s holding, for a few months, anyway…