What with the hullabaloo about the upcoming presidummy's speech and the anticipation that he will call for an increase in troops in Iraq, there has been a certain amount of talk about how the Democrats should oppose this in some way, perhaps by voting to deny funding for such a "surge". Now, to get my views out of the way quickly, I firmly believe that sending any more troops is stupidity of a nearly criminal level, a move which indicates a total misunderstanding of what causes the violence in Iraq and how to deal with it. And, I believe that by not opposing such a move, the Democrats (the putative "opposition party") are tacitly endorsing it.
Yet it appears to me that according to many posts made before by Kos and many other posters on this site, that it is believed that we should just let them go ahead and throw more innocent American soldiers (not to mention enough money to create an entire national health care infrastructure) away into the undeniable "quagmire" that is America's folly in Iraq.
Find out why below the fold.
So the American public is strongly against the war at this point. A majority of Americans believe we should get out of Iraq within a year. A majority of Americans believe that getting in in the first place was the wrong thing. The situation of the perception of the American public is bad and getting worse.
Note that I just said the "situation of the perception of the American public"; NOT the actual situation in Iraq. I'm making a distinction here between the situation on the ground in Iraq, and the PERCEPTION not of how it is going, but of how Bush and his neocon cronies have handled it. And this distinction is important.
Because Democrats are in a sticky situation as regards the "Iraq situation". The Democrats have been in a situation where, previous to just a few days ago, there was no power to actually do anything about it; but now, with a Democratic majority in both the Senate and House, there is an opportunity to mold policy and actions. And here is the problem.
Because the current course of action (letting the presidolt have his way and do whatever stupid-ass plan comes into his head, complete with hyper-simplistic planning ("we won't need to worry about peacekeeping, because we'll be greeted with flowers") and inadequate funding for the safety of the troops) clearly leads to the American public getting increasingly more frustrated and annoyed with him. Which was a direct factor in the recent upset of the Senate and House, leading to a Democratic majority in both those bodies.
So the incompetence of the presidork leads to a bolstering of Democrats and an increase in Democrats' power. And since the Democrats are better for America than the Republicans, we should just let the presidick do what he wants, right?
Obviously, it's a specious and stupid argument. Yet it's one in which Kos and so many others have engaged, in slightly different form, when arguing that the Democrats should not push for impeachment. The arguments given have been of the form that "pushing for impeachment would endanger the Democrats' power in the future, by energizing the opposition and taking focus away from the efforts to truly help America". In a previous diary entry, I argued that that was precisely the wrong way to go; that the reason the Democrats should move towards impeachment is simply that it is the right thing to do.
But Kos and a number of posters apparently disagree; they believe that it is more effective and useful for the Democratic party to simply ignore the illegal actions of the presidolt and sacrifice principles for the good of party.
Well, we have a perfect opportunity here. By doing nothing, yet again, the Democratic party can bolster itself by allowing for yet more incompetence on the party of the presiduh. And all it will cost is more American lives. What a bargain! After all, according to Joe Lieberman, an "independent Democrat", the "worst that could happen" is that the policy could become a "partisan flashpoint in Washington". Well, then, hey, what the hell, why not? And, let's face it, Lieberman has always had the best interests of the Democratic party in mind, hasn't he?
The simple fact is, inaction (in the form of not impeaching, or of implicitly allowing for a troop "surge" and a multibillion dollar unapproved cost increase) is, in fact, good for the Democratic party, because it makes ever more clear to the American public that the Republican party is inept and morally bankrupt. But if you believe that we should allow for more damage to be done to America and Americans for the sake of enhancing the power of any one political party, then you are no better than the Republicans; you are an opportunistic, power-hungry slime.
Saying that not acting against the Republicans will allow for more Democrats to gain power, and THEN we can do something to help the American public, is dependent upon the ability to do something IN THE FUTURE. And there is no guarantee that the future will go as planned, or that you will have that power; merely a hope. There's a reason why many Eastern philosophies stress the idea of living in the moment and doing what is right in the moment.
Sacrificing the right thing in the moment for expected future gain is NEVER the right thing to do. And if you believe, as I do, that Bush cannot be allowed to continue acting as though this were his personal kingdom and acting like a drunken, idiotic fratboy, then he needs to be opposed. Even if it means sacrificing some of the power Democrats have.
Period.