What will be required to bring an end to the Iraq debacle is effective leadership.
What does 'effective leadership' on Iraq mean? It is a simple formulation, but deceptively so.
It means that people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi need to advance our agenda through action. And that is where the tricky part lies.
If Reid and Pelosi are too cautious, nothing will be accomplished and the status quo will remain entrenched. If they overreach, the consequences can be disastrous--a divided party/movement and a strengthening of the position for the bad guys.
What is needed, then, is that Reid and Pelosi be in front of popular opinion on the issue, but not too far in front. They need to advance the agenda without separating themselves from the popular political will necessary to achieve that agenda.
So, the question becomes "when and how do we build up the popular support for a defunding of the Iraq war?" This is a very, very serious question. If we move to defund too quickly, the Republicans will be emboldened and the Blue Dogs will tuck their tail between their legs. If we don't move towards taking action like defunding (or a binding timeline) then, well, nothing changes in Iraq. Which is a bad thing.
A partial answer to this question comes to us via CBS news:
Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Congress should block all funding war in Iraq no matter what OR 2. Congress should allow funding only for a limited period of time OR 3. Congress should allow all funding for the war in Iraq without a time limit.
Block all funding 9
Allow only w/time limit 58
Should allow all funding 29
Don't know/No answer 4
Two things are immediately clear: Very few are in favor of giving Bush a blank check on Iraq, and even fewer are in favor of pulling the plug immediately.
Instead, the consensus seems to be to fund another Friedman or two.
At first blush, this seems to scream "REID-FEINGOLD!!!!" However, a word of caustion is appropriate here. Public opinion is notoriously conflicted over Iraq. People are deeply ambivalent--they want us out as soon as possible, but aren't necessarily ready for the consequences of that withdrawal.
We see this in talking heads and pundits and 'experts' as well. They always talk about their opposition to a blank check and indefinite commitment while saying "this is the last chance." Then, when that chance slips away, they decide to go in for another Friedman.
In other words, when the moment of truth hits they're afraid to pull the plug.
I was struck by this passage from Big Tent Democrat
This approach is perfectly consistent with the so called "short leash" plan, where the Debacle will be funded in 3 month intervals. But it is only consistent if BOTH are done. The intention to NOT fund the war after March 31, 2008 must be made the Dem position now.
The short leash must be pulled to a stop on March 31, 2008.
Say it now so you can end it then. If you do not say it now, then you can't end it on March 31, 2008.
This approach has the following virtues: (1) you are funding the troops in the field; (2) you are giving the Surge a chance to work; (3) you are laying out a plan the American People support; and most importantly, (4)you can end the Debacle and bring our troops home.
Now if your goal is to RUN on the Debacle (which is unattainable in my opinion, the ruse is too easily seen through) then you won't like this plan.
But if you want to run as the Party that ended the Debacle, or at least the Party that did everything it could to end the Debacle, then you must adopt the NOT funding plan. That means Reid-Feingold.
I agree fully with what he says here, with one dissenting point and one point to make in addition.
In dissent, I would state that whether it's a binding timeline or a funding measure is secondary to the political will being in place. A timeline requires less political consensus than a funding cut-off, but isn't as effective. If the political will is there for a cut-off, do that. Obviously, there's no polling result that will tell us what kind of support either measure has. Tough stuff.
In addition, I would note that an essential part of a funding cut-off for a future date is to be able to look ahead to the date of that cut-off. When the moment of truth comes, will the people who said that they're in favor of a future cut-off in funds remain convinced, or will they decide that, no, we really should gived it one more Friedman because we haven't given the Iraq venture every opportunity to succeed and that we need to give it one more try.
This is why a proposed future cut-off needs to be accompanied by measures to build, consolidate, and solidify the popular political will to support a cut-off in funding once that date arrives as opposed to one year in advance.
Also, we need to look ahead and anticipate the unexpected. What if things change dramatically in Iraq? What if a withdrawal of US troops would lead to a former Yugoslavia degeneration or Rwanda-style genocide? What if, on the other hand, things DO turn around and there appears to be a chance that, with better leadership from the US, a decent society in Iraq can be salvaged if the US stays? In either of those kinds of events, the wisdom and political viability of a cut-off in funding would be questionable. A plan to cut-off funds needs to address such questions.
So, ratchet up the pressure through the short-leash of funding approach AND pass Reid-Feingold. That is the ideal approach.
However, we must also remain flexible in our thinking while steadfast in our principles. Our thinking must adapt to reality, instead of trying to force our conception of reality to meet our thinking.
Comments are closed on this story.