The Senate and Iraq

Imagine you're boarding a troop transport for Iraq -- and you see this story:

Democratic and Republican opponents of President Bush's troop-buildup plan joined forces last night behind the nonbinding resolution with the broadest bipartisan backing: a Republican measure from Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced the shift, hoping to unite a large majority of the Senate and thwart efforts by the White House and GOP leaders to derail any congressional resolution of disapproval of Bush's decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500.

You're leaving your loved ones, facing possible loss of life or limb for your country, but the U.S. Senate is officially saying you shouldn't be going. What do you think that would do to your morale?

Now, I've written in this space of my doubts about the wisdom of a troop increase. I've expressed little to no faith in the civilian leadership of the military, up to and including the president. But the game the Senate is playing is irresponsible. The resolution is nonbinding so it will do nothing except send a message to the troops going to and in Iraq (and to our enemies) that America is not united behind our mission there. It seems to me that such a message would be discouraging to our troops while give courage to the enemy.

Further, if our august Senators truly believe this is a colossal mistake, then stop it. Use the power of the purse to end it. Or search for some other legal means to end it. And then take responsibility for the outcome.

Robert Kagan had a powerful piece in this Sunday's Post. Of the various calls for withdrawal, troop caps and the like, Kagan writes:

Other critics claim that these are political cop-outs, which they are. These supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States? Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged that these are likely consequences of precipitate withdrawal.

Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous. Do they recommend that we then do nothing, regardless of the consequences? Or are they willing to say publicly, right now, that they would favor sending U.S. troops back into Iraq to confront those new dangers? Answering those questions really would be honest and brave.

But with the presidential election of 2008 looming large, honesty and bravery are not qualities we're likely to see from the Senate -- the playground for presidential wannabes.