Rooting For Failure?
While other House Democrats were pretending that their nonbinding resolution against the Iraq troop surge was of great import, antiwar champion Rep. John Murtha spoke the truth. It is not “the real vote,” he said in a webcast for the left-wing MoveCongress.org. That comes with Murtha’s imminent attempt to hamstring President Bush’s conduct of the war that may well spark a constitutional crisis.
There is a straightforward way for Congress to end a war: Cut off its entire funding. Congress has the power of the purse, the most important lever of legislative influence in the Anglo-American tradition. But House Democrats don’t want to wield this power because they’re afraid it will expose them to charges of defunding the troops. So they are resorting to an unconstitutional expedient instead.
Murtha wants to attach conditions on the impending supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. He would require that troops have a year at home before redeploying, that they train with their own equipment before deploying and so on. Because the too-small U.S. military is under enormous strain, these conditions would be impossible to meet while still doubling the number of U.S. combat troops in Baghdad.
…Arguably, his maneuver will be the most blatant congressional intrusion on the president’s war-making powers in the nation’s history. Congress choked off the Vietnam War in the 1970s, but only after U.S. ground troops were mostly already out of the country and chiefly as a matter of cutting off aid to South Vietnam.
Just as disturbing is Murtha’s cynical reliance on failure in Iraq as a political strategy. The plan aptly has been described by Politico.com as a “slow-bleed” antiwar strategy. The surge is the best chance of turning the war around. By hampering it, Democrats will ensure that the war continues to fail, and thus that domestic political support for it plummets to the point where Democrats feel safe in defunding it.
The subconscious logic of their position on the war has thus taken a subtle turn. It used to be that the war had to end because it was a failure; now it must fail so that it can end.
Now, we all know how huffy people get when their patriotism is questioned – but how do you describe crossing the line from partisan opposition to actively hoping our efforts fail?
If that way of putting things seems unfair, try this way: how many war opponents put the goal of ending the war and bringing the troops home before the goal of accomplishing our mission? Lowry is right, the ground has shifted and it’s the same sort of shift that James Taranto notes here, when the dynamic in Vietnam changed from concern about the mission to denial that the reasons for the mission ever existed. As Taranto says re: Chuck Schumer’s unexplicable desire to revisit the Vietnam era:
Why would anyone want to replay “the days of Vietnam”? The outcome of that war was a defeat for America and a humanitarian disaster for the people of South Vietnam and Cambodia.
Take a fairly popular and increasingly successful representative of progressive thought, one Glenn Greenwald, who opines here on Tony Blair’s reversal on withdrawing troops from Iraq:
That rather striking reversal does not appear to reflect much confidence in the prospects of success for the President’s Glorious AEI Surge currently underway. Moreover, given that British troops are deployed primarily in Southern Iraq, their withdrawal will either require a deployment of replacement American forces (thereby diluting the “surge”), or create a vacuum where Iran can exert still greater influence and/or provide a safe haven for Shiite militias to wait out the “surge” in safety (while American forces do their dirty work in battling the Sunnis).
Blair’s reversal was likely motivated in large part by various domestic political pressures. Still, the fact that President Bush’s most steadfast ally has reversed himself in such a public and humiliating way, and announced a clear-cut withdrawal from Iraq on a set timetable, should embolden frightened American Congressional war opponents to move beyond inconsequential and limited non-binding resolutions and begin thinking seriously about how to compel an end to this endlessly destructive occupation.
Note the sarcasm dripping from the mention of the surge, and the clear-cut goal: to compel an end to “this endlessly destructive occupation”. No mention is made of withdrawing in orderly fashion, nor is thought given to what happens to the Iraqis who will suffer the consequences of the withdrawal of the only force capable of offering even the slightest protection against raging civil war. Needless to say, any thought of victory is totally out of the question.
I don’t question Glenn’s patriotism, or anyone else’s, but I must say I find it odd, indeed, when people care more about ending a war then winning it…
Mark, this such B.S. You can disagree with Murtha if you want, but to suggest that he is “hoping our efforts fail” shows a total inability to understand what people who disagree with you actually think. Murtha believes, strongly, that our “mission” has already failed and that our continued presence in Iraq is counterproductive, i.e., that it is doing more harm to our national interests that good. Maybe he’s right; maybe he’s wrong. But he’s not hoping we fail. The guy is a veteran and a silver star winner. He’s been perhaps the most loyal supporter of our military in Congress for the last two decades.
And how about Jim Webb, who shares Murtha’s beliefs? He’s also a silver star winner and his son is currently serving in Iraq. Do you really think he too is “hoping our efforts fail”? Please. That’s incredibily insurting and ridiculous. These guys are every bit the patriots you or Rich Lowry are. And they’ve actually risked their lives in combat to prove it.
Everyone wants what is in America’s best interest. We just disagree about what course of action is in America’s best interest. If you believe that our mission has failed and that every day we stay in Iraq we are making things worse, then it is your patriotic duty to try to get us the hell out of there. That’s what Murtha and Webb believe, so they are acting accordingly. It’s that simple. Accusing people of rooting for failure or not being patriotic is just such rubbish.
I didn’t accuse anyone of being unpatriotic, but I’m having a hard time seeing how Murtha can participate in a conference call where he outlines a strategy of denying our troops equipment and reinforcements under the guise of ‘readiness’ instead of flat out pulling the funding, which he is too cowardly (politically) to do, and have that called a particularly patriotic act.
I know we all want what’s best for this country, Anonymous, but people, even Congressmen, lose their sense of perspective sometimes. And that’s what I’m suggesting is happening here…
And Anonymous, as Lowry notes, it’s not ‘rooting for failure’ because he’s un-American – the idea is that (perhaps subconsciously) to many war opponents, the failure of the surge has become synonymous with bringing the troops home…
Finally, don’t be so insulted. Glenn Greenwald, who I quoted in this post, constantly calls Bush supporters ‘cult followers’, suggests that we are fascists, impugns our motives, etc., etc. (The very title of his book is an implicit accusation of unpatriotic behavior on the part of Bush and his followers). I have a healthy respect for Glenn’s accomplishments, and we have a friendly rivalry, but have you ever once left him a comment suggesting such an attitude is total b.s.?
I’m just asking, maybe you have…but my very cautious wording here doesn’t merit your harsh response, in my view. Then again, I’m tired of arguing tonight, so pardon me if I’m a bit touchy. No hard feelings, but I think my questions are legitimate…
It’s one thing to oppose Bush on partisan grounds, or even to oppose the surge – but to root for its failure…well, that seems a bit… like a malicious accusation leveled at someone who suggested no such thing. It is of course followed by a pose of victimhood, earned when all those mean folks over at GG have the audacity to point out that you are indeed full of it.
Paul, you never can resist coming back over here and having a dig at me, can you? No matter…we can handle dissenters around here without questioning their humanity.
I mean, come on, man, look at that jerk William, and the crap he’s been throwing my way (note to my readers – this refers to an ongoing ‘battle’ in the comments at Glenn Greenwald’s blog). I’m not playing the victim, or I wouldn’t even go there – but look at what happens to anyone who tries to deviate from the party line!
It’s just silly…
It seems quite clear to me that Murtha is the leader of a crowd, largely Democrats, that does want the US to fail in Iraq. But rather than accuse them of treason or question their patriotism I argue that they are motivated by the belief that a loss in Iraq would be good for the United States. That by constraining what they see as an overambitious foreign policy, we will improve our standing in the world and our security. They believe that extracting our troops from Iraq will remove a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, will lead to better relations with the Nations there, will reduce the threat of terrorism for the US and, possibly, the World, and will dramatically improve our relations with the blessed International Community.
I think they are horribly wrong and ignoring, or ignorant of, the lessons of history.
Suddenly, after the Republicans were clobbered in the mid-term elections, the idea of “the surge” became the rallying cry for those who want “victory” in Iraq. Before that, all we heard was “stay the course” and that we can’t “cut and run”. Stay the course was thoroughly rebuked by American voters. The surge is, therefore, as much a political strategy as a military one.
The premise that those who want to end the war as soon as possible are for “defeat” is wrong. Millions of Americans believe that after four years of carnage with very little, if any, progress we have already lost the military campaign and that Murtha is right when he says we can’t win this militarily. Under the best of circumstances, we will leave a Shiite dominated government closely aligned with Iran, which was not exactly our mission when this started. The Iraq War is a disaster and, like any disaster, it’s best to admit you have a disaster, salvage what you can and extricate yourself.
We deposed Saddam, we insured there are no weapons of mass destruction and we allowed the Iraqis to elect their own government. We did some things right. They responded by voting strictly along sectarian lines and then slaughtering each other. They have chosen not to fight for a unified country of Iraq. We can’t change that.
Well, it’s an honorable viewpoint, and I don’t denigrate you for holding it. I just want the Democrats to be honest: vote for pulling funding for the war, up or down. None of this ‘readiness’ jazz; in other words, have the courage of your convinctions (not you personally, but the Democrats)…
I just want the Democrats to be honest: vote for pulling funding for the war, up or down.
I just want the Republicans to be honest: If this is the defining struggle of our time, urge a full mobilization of the nation and it’s resources. None of this “go shopping” jazz.
Well, no, that’s not a fair comparison at all…we are increasing the size of the military, but it’s going to take some time. Do you want a draft? This is not the ‘total war’ of World War II, thank God. But the Murtha plan is a very real, very imminent reality…
we are increasing the size of the military
Ummm, your memory’s being a bit selective. Kerry suggested enlarging the military in 2004. The Bushies said it would be unnecessary and counter-productive. Democrats introduced the United States Army Relief Act in 2005; it never made it out of committee. It wasn’t until the midterm slap that Bush came around.
There’s been a strange dichotomy from the start in GOP rhetoric: Americans are supposed to believe we’re in a world-historic struggle, but they should feel guilty about enjoying the milk and honey the preznit’s world-historic tax cuts have given them. That’s how we get preznitdential statements like, “They sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible image of violence on TV every night.”
Admittedly, the president came late to the ‘enlarge the military’ party; I’m not denying that (I blame Rumsfeld and his doctrines, but the C-In-C is ultimately responsible). Still, he did come to the party eventually…
Right. But I’m talking about the parties’ respective political posture, not whether a larger military makes sense substantively. I freely admit the Kerry and congressional Dem proposals were purely “pro-military” stunts with little connection to actual military requests or need at the time. And neither side has talking about how we’re going to pay for any of this.
You want the Dems to be honest; I’m saying there’s no honesty on either side. I come back to Jim Henley’s quote that I linked to above:
I blame the Dems for going along with that charade in the first place. The Dems are still scared of the Dolchstosslegende, and the GOP is still scared to ask something more of voters than affixing a support the troops magnet. That’s why we’re in this strange political purgatory.
I don’t entirely disagree…and that’s why I turned on Rummy even before it was cool, because it was clear that we had attempted Iraq on the cheap, as it were, though of course, with the benefit of glorious hindsight…
Mark, first of all, let me apologize if my first post sounded harsh. It’s just that I find this constant questioning of Murtha’s motives to be totally unfounded and ridiculous. You write:
Look, this has nothing to do with political courage. Murtha has been mercilessly vilified ever since he came out in favor of withdrawal last year. His personal political courage has nothing whatsoever to do with what he’s doing. If he didn’t have courage, in spades, he would have given up a long time ago.
The reason Murtha is trying this more roundabout way has everything to do with results. If he put his efforts into cutting off funding–which you suggest is the more honest and “courageous” route–he would fail. People like you and Rich Lowry would demogogue his plan to death; you’d accuse him of endangering troops, etc. He would never have any prayer of getting the votes he needs. And the war would rage on. So instead, he’s trying a different route, a way with at least a marginally greater chance of success. Is that really so hard to understand? If you think it is really imporant that Bush’s policy change, doesn’t it make sense to pursue the means most likely to bring that about? Why “courageously” pursue legislation that will never have the votes to pass?
Well, because it’s dishonest, and this is the most important issue facing the country today. Murtha’s tactic is not about readiness, as you seem to freely admit, but about ending the war.
Fine, then, let the vote be on ending the war. Face the music and the criticism and do the right thing, if it is the right thing.
And like I said, I was in a cranky mood last night after arguing at Greenwald’s (I don’t know why I bother, frankly – a bit masochistic of me)…so yes, I was a bit snappy. No big deal.
You did the right thing by reminding me that everyone wants the best thing for the country. It’s easy to lose sight of that sometimes…
I don’t think it’s dishonest. Murtha is not pretending that his plan has nothing to do with ending the war. He’s up front and honest about his intentions. What he’s trying to do is kill two birds with one stone. He thinks the armed forces are in bad shape, that they’ve been stretched too thin by repeat deployments and are not currently in the state of readiness they should be (he’s right about all those things, by the way). So he sees his bill as a way of addressing that problem, and by doing so, force the President to change course. He thinks is is preferable to cutting of funding because 1) he’d actually like to see more money go to the military (just not to this war), and 2) Republicans have already demogogued the hell out of the more defunding option, thereby making it politically unviable.
Show me a quote were Murtha denies that his bill has anything to do with ending the war and I’ll concede that he is being dishonest. Meanwhile, the Republican claim that Murtha’s plan is somehow unconstitutional or puts troops in danger IS dishonest, to the extreme.
You deny troops needed equipment and reinforcements, and you put them in danger. It’s not rocket science, and that’s what the upshot will be…
Here’s what the Washington Post editorial board said:
[Murtha] would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to “stop the surge.” So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill — an action Congress is clearly empowered to take — rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. “What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with,” he said.
You can’t say that Murtha is not trying to be sneaky here: just constantly saying ‘we can’t defund because of Republican demagoguery’ is a cop-out. What that really is saying is we can’t just defund because that’s not what the American people want, despite their desire for a change of direction.
Since when was the demagoguery of the opposition a meaningful reason not to do the right thing?
Since time immemorial.
“Since when was the demagoguery of the opposition a meaningful reason not to do the right thing?”
There are plenty of instances where Democrats have done the principled thing and lost their positions due to Republican demagoguery. (Just ask Max Cleland, for one example). One of the unfortunate legacies of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove is that politics is now a sport of gotcha, and not one of trying to find the best course for the country. The catch-22 which the Democrats find themselves in is that it is a virtual certainty that things will get worse once we leave, at least in the short run. Hence you have Republicans from George Bush on down daring the Democrats to defund the war, so there is someone to blame for the inevitable bloodshed which will follow. Bush is kicking the can down the road so the conflagration to come is on his successor’s watch – but whether we leave this year, next year, or the year after, the last vestiges of restraint preventing Sunni and Shia from killing each other will be dissolved. So what do you do: throw more American lives on the fire to delay the inevitable, or pull them now and try to survive the inevitable attack ads which will state that it’s really the Defeatocrats – and not the phony cassus belli and mismanagement of the occupation — which are the cause of the bloodshed?
Your pessimism is certainly discouraging, Peter. Of course there’s an opposite viewpoint, maybe not as popular, that says that a troop increase might just buy the Iraqi government some time and calm the violence somewhat – and maybe the long-delayed feeling of Iraqi unity might begin to form.
A fool’s dream, maybe, but not an impossible one – of course, it depends on the Iraqi government doing the right thing and that’s no sure thing, either…
There’s more than a little bit of self-deception going on here, too, it seems to me: you guys seem to be suggesting to me that the Democrats fear attack ads accusing them of cutting and running – for, ahem, cutting and running…
Post 22: I think my pessimism is warranted. I question whether even a much greater deployment would work: when we invaded Iraq, we took a baseball bat to a beehive and unleashed passions which are not amenable to military force. My view is that the cycle of violence will go on for years and there is little, if anything, we can do to stop it. Many people think that our presence there exacerbates the problem. I’m not sure if this is true, but everything we have tried thus far has failed, and I don’t see how more of the same will work. It’s time to try something radically different. As in any decision, you have to weigh risks versus reward. Also, I think the idea of “Iraqi unity” is a chimera: it hasn’t been a unified country in the sense we know it for generations. We know the risk: sending more troops means more American soldiers will die. Does the (minimal? negligible? non-existent) likelihood of success justify the known risk? My view is no.
Post 23: you prove my point. A 22 year old who gets a girl pregnant and moves away to avoid the consequences can be said to cut and run. After four years and over 3,000 dead, nobody can accuse us of cutting and running. We tried and failed. There are no tangible indications of progress: things continually get worse. The likelihood of success, no matter how loosely defined, is slim to none. At some point, you have to know when to fold them. In my view, we reached that point long ago. To take a clear-eyed look at the situation on the ground and decide that it is time to go is in now way equivalent to the 22 year old. (Nor is “slow bleed” what anyone suggests: this is another way that a principled stand is distorted into something it isn’t). However, in the shorthand of 30 second attack ads, this is what happens.
On the contrary, I think ’slow bleed’ is a quite accurate description of the Murtha strategy, albeit one that was suggested by a reporter and not Murtha himself.
And as far as ‘cut and run’ goes, I’m no longer interested in semantics. You push for immediate troop withdrawals, you better be prepared for some political blowback.
How is my perhaps unfair wording any different from the rhetorical games Democrats play? It’s all politics. The important thing is the consequences of the actions (and the votes), not the partisan rhetoric…