I was opposed to the war from the begining, and would like to see it end as soon as possible. That being said, I'm not sure I'd vote just to cut off funding. There is a good chance that it would lead to a disaster, and that disaster could be mitigated by winding up the war in a sane way, in concert with a Democratic, or Republican President committed to ending the war.

Truthfully while most dems probably want to end the war realativly soon, the anti-war faction doesn't include all dems in the house or senate, A threat to cut off funding would probably just be politically disasterous, and just see a budget passed by the Republicans and conservative dems who cross over.

Were stuck till January 2009 at the earlist, and honestly I doubt that whatever president that gets elected in 2009, will be able to get us out either. In 1968, both canidates ran on ending the war, and our troops didn't leave until 5 years later. Countries simply do not have a habit of losing wars gracefully.

Congress can quite easily end the war within six months if they so choose. No money equals no war, and while the Democrats aren't strong enough to pass a resolution rescinding the Authorization to Use Military Force, they are certainly strong enough not to pass a budget funding further operations in Iraq.

Well, suppose they did pass a budget that showed no funding for the Iraq war starting six months from now. And suppose they said that beyond that they would provide no further funding, and suppose they meant it - would you expect GWB would order an orderly withdrawal beginning ASAP, or do you think he would continue operations as is in the hopes that, two weeks or so before the funding is due to run out with U.S. troops are just as involved as they are now, Democrats would cave and order up more funding to avoid a catastrophe? That is, would you put it past the President to play chicken with the U.S. military and a Congress determined not to fund the war?

What would you want Congress to do in such an instance?

Well, since I'll be in country at that time, I'd want them to blink.

Look, I understand that there are limits to what Congress can do. But this wanting to have it both ways disgusts me. If you think we've lost, then say so. I'm tired of people like John Murtha who want to kill the war but who don't have the moral courage to take the political hit for it.

Your core premise is not correct.

Defunding the war requires passing a budget that leaves out such funding and overriding a Bush veto of such a budget. That is never going to happen, and is beyond the power of Democrats to accomplish unless a large number of Republicans join the effort.

The only other tactic available is a repeat of 1995 and the failure to pass any funding, causing an overall government shut-down. We all know how well that worked for Republicans.

So long as the Republican party continues to support Bush's policies 100% (which is their current posture), there is nothing the Democrats can do short of shutting down the entire government.

And the quote you link -- you engage in some very selective reading. It follows the author's accurate analysis that the Democrats do not have the power to stop the war unless some Republicans cooperate in that effort, which will not happen. So using the issue for 2008 is a fall-back strategy since unless the Democrats gain more power, they cannot unilaterally stop this war.

The moral cowards are those Republicans in Congress who no longer support the administration's war strategy but will not work with Democrats to end it. Since they hold the crucial swing votes, they have a great deal of power should they choose to buck Bush (i.e., they do not have to vote for whatever program the Democrats propose, but can negotiate with their crucial votes), but they so far have refused to do so.

I overlooked one thing. Bush has been funding Iraq through special appropriations -- the choice is still between no funding at all (for Iraq, not the 1995 shut down scenario) or doing a deal with Bush on Iraq funding. Complete defunding by not passing a law is a pretty blunt tool and the only one available if Bush will not compromise (which he won't).

No matter how this war ends up, your service in Iraq will provide some small measure of American goodwill that hopefully will be remembered by some Iraqis, and make some difference. It's more good than I can ever hope to contribute to this thing.

Also, to Publius' credit, I believe his point was that the fight to end the war immediately would be lost on the political front, if it were fought right now, regardless of public opinion etc. His post read (at least to me) as, "There's no way that the present balance of power will allow the Democrats to end things immediately, so they should focus on making sure that they're in a position to end it after the election."

Perhaps I misunderstood and was giving him too much credit; in any case, I certainly CAN agree that anyone who feels that American soldiers' lives should be sacrificed to 'ratchet up the pressure' on Bush has sold their soul to the political game.

Andrew: those who see in Iraq a wonderful opportunity to win more seats for their party, like publius.

This, as I see it, is a monstrously unfair reading of publius, who specifically said:

But I’m not advocating politicization simply as a means to put the Dems in power. In fact, it’s exactly the reverse -- I want the Dems in power so people will stop getting killed. Political control is not an end, it’s a means to the greater end of bringing this tragedy to a close.

He also began by saying: I share the same goal with the Feingolds and Stollers of the world –- i.e., to end the war as soon as possible (though I’d prefer a gradual withdrawal). But people need to think harder about the best means to reach this end.

Now you may (and apparently do) disagree with his conclusion that the Democrats do not in fact have the power to end the war now. That turns on questions of Congressional politics on which I have no great expertise. I'd like to believe you were right - so Democrats could in fact stop the war now - except that they probably wouldn't, so maybe I'd prefer publius's view, just so it would allow me to retain a little hope for humanity, but the fact is I don't really know. Go ahead and debate the point. (And maybe on ObWi, not just here?)

You might also come up with Democratic politicos who would indeed use the Iraq war - or their own mother's immanent surgery - for political advantage if they could. (I have no doubt whatsoever that they exist, though I'm not sure I could identify the individuals myself.) If in fact they prolong the war for any such reason, they deserve to be in the same circle of hell as Richard Nixon, who carried on the Vietnam War four years after he knew it was unwinnable, just for the sake of his political reputation and re-election. Damn them all! (Can I say that on your blog? I mean it quite literally.)

But I do not think that you can in good conscience treat publius with the same kind of broad-brush contempt, based on what he said here.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: