What can one conclude about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid forcing Congress to stay up all night debating a cut-and-run Iraq amendment to the defense-authorization bill? Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, it was not. The amendment failed largely along party lines, and Reid plucked the bill from consideration. Game Over.
This test was a draw.
Winner #1: The Iraqis. It is looking increasingly
like the Bush administration will be able to run out the clock and
maintain support for the fledgling Iraqi government for the
remaining 18 months of the president's tenure. That means the
Iraqis have about a year or so to do the only things that will
really make a difference in securing a sovereign and stable
country: pushing forward on the process of political reconciliation
and building up a credible domestic-security force. If those two
goals can be achieved, the Iraqis can implement, with international
support, a long-term plan to effectively deal with the
counterinsurgency. This is the best hope to avoid a
Bosnia-on-steroids scenario in Iraq.
Winner #2: Democracy. If generals could figure
out how to run wars thousands of miles from the battlefield in
air-conditioned offices, they would have started doing that years
ago. They don't because they realize wars have to be fought on the
ground in the presence of the enemy, not in a debate chamber where
the uncomfortable realities of battle can be glossed over with
speeches. If Congress starts dictating battle tactics by
legislation, that does not simply put this war in doubt -
it puts the capacity of America to fight any war in doubt.
Winner #3: America's Army. Cutting and running
from Iraq would squander the efforts being made Gen. David Petraeus
and his soldiers to set the conditions for a responsible withdrawal
of American forces - one that would not embolden Iran; offer al
Qaeda a new sanctuary; risk a regional war; and unleash a
humanitarian catastrophe. Cut-and-run legislation might also put
more American lives at risk, dictating how and where troops could
be employed in a manner that might make them more vulnerable.
Commanders in the field must have the freedom of action to employ
soldiers as they see fit to accomplish their mission, protect the
force and safeguard civilians.
Loser #1: The Pentagon. The defense-authorization
bill provides guidance to the military on a range of matters, from
benefits for individual soldiers to modernizing equipment and
taking care of military families. It is important companion
legislation to the defense-appropriations bill. Pulling the bill is
a disservice to the military.
Loser #2: Democracy. The debate over the
defense-authorization bill put the importance "messaging" over
legislating. In time of war, when congressional leaders believe
driving the political agenda takes precedence over passing
legislation necessary to oversee the activities of the Defense
Department - that is just flat-out irresponsible.
Loser #3: C-SPAN. Will people continue to watch
C-SPAN when they figure out that what senators debate on the floor
of Congress has little to do with the reality of governing?
Unfortunately, when the game ends in tie, everyone is anxious for
a rematch. The debate over Iraq will likely prove no
different.
James Jay
Carafano is senior research fellow on national security issues
at the Heritage
Foundation.
First appeared in the National Review