[Peace-discuss] Feckless Democrats

[C. G. Estabrook]

"What accounts for the seeming willingness -- even among more vocal war 
opponents and bloggers -- to give Democrats a pass on actually ending 
the war (as opposed to enacting symbolic, inconsequential resolutions)?"

[I know, I know -- that subject line is repetitious, but Mort got upset 
at last night's meeting at my being unpleasant about the Democrats, so I 
thought I'd post this morning's comment from the excellent Glenn 
Greenwald, who shows how the appropriate point (the one I ended with 
last night) is being made on the Right (John Yoo!), whatever their 
motives. (Although I'm not at all sure that Obama's proposal "has actual 
teeth.") And the Update at the end exposes a Democratic front.  --CGE]

	Monday, February 12, 2007
	Giving Democrats a pass on ending the war?
	(updated below)

Commissar is a right-wing blogger and long-time Bush supporter. He 
originally supported the Iraq war but some time last year finally came 
to the conclusion that the war has been a failure and was a mistake from 
the start. He acknowledged his own errors in judgment in supporting the 
war and, in the midterm elections, he supported and voted for Democrats 
because (like many voters) he wanted them to take over Congress and put 
a stop to the war. This weekend, he wrote a post in which he asks:


     Why are the Netroots NOT constantly hammering the Dem majorities in 
Congress to de-fund the war? . . . Obviously defunding the war (or at 
least the surge) could be politically costly. But what is more 
important? Stopping the war or holding onto political power?

     That is a question which is a tough one for the Dem politicians. To 
some extent, I understand their reluctance to take such a move, which 
might have political consequences. . . .

     Those who disagree with the war in Iraq should be opposing it every 
day, almost to the exclusion of other topics. . . . Why not pile on the 
pressure on Congressional leaders to stop funding the war? What would a 
patriot do? Why did I vote Dem in 2006? Your side has the power, guys.


In this morning's New York Times, John Yoo has an Op-Ed, co-written with 
attorney Lynn Chu, which makes a similar point:


     [B]ehind all the bluster, the one thing all the major Democratic 
proposals have in common is that they are purely symbolic resolutions, 
with all the force of a postcard. . . .The fact is, Congress has every 
power to end the war — if it really wanted to. It has the power of the 
purse. . . . Not only could Congress cut off money, it could require 
scheduled troop withdrawals, shrink or eliminate units, or freeze 
weapons supplies. It could even repeal or amend the authorization to use 
force it passed in 2002. . . .

     The truth is that the Democrats in Congress would rather sit back 
and let the president take the heat in war than do anything risky. That 
way they get to prepare for the next election while pointing fingers of 
blame and spinning conspiracy theories.


It is, I think, very hard to deny that there are some valid points 
lurking here. Most Bush critics accept these two premises: (1) Congress 
has the power to compel a withdrawal of troops from Iraq and (2) a 
withdrawal -- whether immediate or one that is completed within, say, 
six to nine months -- is vitally important. It is important in its own 
right and, perhaps even more so, because it is our presence in Iraq 
which enables all sorts of future disasters, including a looming 
confrontation with Iran.

Yet the Democratic-controlled Congress is clearly not going to attempt 
to exercise its power to compel the end of this war -- at least not any 
time soon. And, with some exceptions, there seems to be very few 
objections over that failure, very little clamoring that they do more. 
Why is that? What accounts for the seeming willingness -- even among 
more vocal war opponents and bloggers -- to give Democrats a pass on 
actually ending the war (as opposed to enacting symbolic, 
inconsequential resolutions)?

Over the past month or so, I attributed the muted or even non-existent 
criticism of Democrats to the very sensible proposition that the new 
Democratic leadership ought to be given some time, a little breathing 
room, to figure out what they will do and, more challengingly, how they 
will accomplish it. It is a complex task to put together a legislative 
strategy that will attract a coalition of legislators -- Democrats and 
some anti-war Republicans -- sufficient to command a majority. That is 
not going to happen overnight, and it would be unreasonable to start 
demanding that Nancy Pelosi end the war in the first week of her 
Speakership.

But that explanation really doesn't take us very far any more, because 
it is clear that Congressional Democrats are not working at all towards 
the goal of forcing an end to the war. They have expressly repudiated 
any de-funding intentions, and -- as Chu and Yoo correctly observe -- 
"two other Democratic Senate proposals that have actual teeth — one by 
Russell Feingold to cut off money for the war, another by Barack Obama 
to mandate troop reductions — were ignored by the leadership." Democrats 
are not going to be any closer to de-funding the war or otherwise 
compelling its conclusion in March or May or July as they are now, and 
they themselves have made that clear. For that reason, the 
"let's-give-them-time" justification lacks coherence.

A more formidable explanation for the lack of criticism of the 
Democratic leadership is pure pragmatic reality -- a Democratic 
leadership which can barely scrape up enough votes to pass a weak, 
non-binding resolution opposing escalation, let alone a non-binding 
resolution calling for an end to the war, would simply never be able to 
attract anywhere near enough votes to sustain a de-funding bill or a 
repeal of the war authorization. That premise is (most likely, though 
not definitely) accurate, but since when have pragmatic considerations 
of that sort stifled arguments from war opponents, liberal activists, 
and bloggers for principled action?

Activists and bloggers routinely demand, based both on principle and 
political strategy, that their political leaders unapologetically 
embrace the political position that is Right, and do not generally 
accept the excuse that doing so is politically unpopular or unlikely to 
succeed. Bloggers and others demanded support for all sorts of important 
measures that had little chance of success -- opposition to, even a 
filibuster of the, Alito nomination, opposition to the Military 
Commissions Act, opposition to the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales as 
Attorney General. On an issue as crucial as ending the war in Iraq, is 
likely legislative failure really a justifiable excuse for failing to 
push that issue, advocate that as a solution, and force a vote?

There are some obvious political considerations that potentially explain 
the muted objections to Democratic inaction on the war. The most 
obvious, and the most ignoble, is a desire that the war in Iraq -- as 
hideously destructive as it is -- still be raging during the 2008 
elections, based on the belief that Americans will punish Republicans 
for the war even more than they did in the 2006 midterm elections. Is 
that naked political calculation driving some of the unwillingness of 
some Democratic elected officials to end the war? One would like to 
think not, but it is growing increasingly more difficult to avoid that 
suspicion.

Then there is the related, somewhat more reasonable political 
consideration which is grounded in the fear that if Democrats end the 
war in Iraq, all of the resulting violence and chaos which rightfully 
belongs in George Bush's lap will instead be heaped on the Democrats 
("we were so close to winning if only the Democrats hadn't forced a 
withdrawal"). It is certainly true that war supporters, desperate to 
blame someone other than themselves for the disaster they have wrought, 
would immediately exploit this dishonest storyline, but does that really 
matter?

If ending the war is urgently necessary, is that consideration even 
remotely sufficient to justify a decision by Democrats to allow it to 
continue? Isn't that the same rationale that was used by Democrats who 
voted in favor of the 2002 Iraq AUMF -- "if we oppose it, we will be 
damaged politically for years to come, and since it will pass anyway, 
why not support it and avoid incurring that political damage"? It is 
difficult to reconcile criticism of Congressional Democrats who voted on 
political grounds in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq with a 
willingness now to allow them to avoid compelling an end to that war.

What does seem clear is that one of the principal factors accounting for 
the reluctance of Democrats to advocate de-funding is that the standard 
corruption that infects our political discourse has rendered the 
de-funding option truly radioactive. Republicans and the media have 
propagated -- and Democrats have frequently affirmed -- the proposition 
that to de-fund a war is to endanger the "troops in the field."

This unbelievably irrational, even stupid, concept has arisen and has 
now taken root -- that to cut off funds for the war means that, one day, 
our troops are going to be in the middle of a vicious fire-fight and 
suddenly they will run out of bullets -- or run out of gas or armor -- 
because Nancy Pelosi refused to pay for the things they need to protect 
themselves, and so they are going to find themselves in the middle of 
the Iraq war with no supplies and no money to pay for what they need. 
That is just one of those grossly distorting, idiotic myths the media 
allows to become immovably lodged in our political discourse and which 
infects our political analysis and prevents any sort of rational 
examination of our options.

That is why virtually all political figures run away as fast and 
desperately as possible from the idea of de-funding a war -- it's as 
though they have to strongly repudiate de-funding options because 
de-funding has become tantamount to "endangering our troops" 
(notwithstanding the fact that Congress has de-funded wars in the past 
and it is obviously done in coordination with the military and over a 
scheduled time frame so as to avoid "endangering the troops").

As Russ Feingold explained in a Daily Kos diary announcing his 
opposition to the Warner/Levin "anti-surge" resolution:


     We owe it to ourselves to demand action that will bring about 
change in Iraq, not take us back to a failed status quo.

     Democrats in Congress have seemingly forgotten that we were in 
power when Congress authorized the President to go to war in Iraq. . . . 
We also have to remember that in November, Americans sent over 30 new 
Democratic Representatives and eight new Democratic Senators plus a very 
progressive Independent to fix a failed Iraq policy. The public is 
craving change in Iraq and a resolution like this one will not cut it. 
Now is the time for strong action.


Those are the type of arguments which one expects to find among anti-war 
activists and bloggers, yet one sees relatively little dissatisfaction, 
and almost no anger, directed at the Democratic leadership for its 
refusal even to force a vote on genuine war-ending measures. It is 
unclear why that is -- perhaps there are good reasons for it -- but 
those reasons are difficult to discern, and these seem like questions 
worth examining.

UPDATE: As but one example, MoveOn.org has a page devoted to a petition 
opposing escalation in Iraq, and also has an ad criticizing Republicans 
for supporting escalation, but they do not -- from what I can tell -- 
have any petitions, actions, marches, campaigns, etc. to urge Congress 
to de-fund the war or otherwise compel a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. 
They even supported the Warner-Levin resolution which, as Sen. Feingold 
pointed out, "signs off on the President continuing indefinite military 
operations in Iraq."

posted by Glenn Greenwald | 9:37 AM Comments (141) |