thedrifter
05-14-07, 08:46 AM
May 14, 2007, 6:00 a.m.
No Way to Win a War
By The Editors
Fresh off President Bush’s veto of an Iraq supplemental with mandated withdrawal dates, Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have passed another bill that would sabotage the war effort.
On Thursday, the House voted to split war funding into two parts. $42.75 billion — enough to fund operations through July 31 — would be released right now. The president would have to report on progress in Baghdad by July 13, and then a second vote would be required to release the remaining $52.8 billion, which would carry the military through the end of the fiscal year in October. President Bush has pledged to veto this bill if it reaches his desk — as indeed he should. The two-part approach would hobble the military’s ability to conduct operations in Iraq and decrease its readiness worldwide.
To begin with, it would make proper planning impossible for commanders in the field. House Democrats are effectively saying, “You have two months to prove that you are winning, or else . . .” Of course, it’s taking Congress longer than that simply to fund the war, an incomparably easier task. Apart from the unreasonableness of this demand, the bill would probably also guarantee a fiercer foe: Al Qaeda in Iraq would have a strong incentive to step up its terror campaign prior to the next House vote, so as to dispel any sense that U.S. and Iraqi forces are making progress. This is no way to win a war.
Moreover, the two-part approach would prolong the disruption to wider military activities that the funding delay has already caused. While the Democrats have fiddled, the Pentagon has had to slow its spending in various non-Iraq accounts in order to keep paying for the war. As defense secretary Robert Gates recently wrote in a letter to John McCain, this dollar shuffling has meant “deferring repair of equipment, restricting the use of government purchase cards, curtailing travel, freezing certain categories of civilian hiring, cancelling non-critical orders and restraining supply purchases.” The Pentagon hasn’t been able to field new armored vehicles and counter-IED technologies, and its funds to train Iraqi forces have been depleted.
The new House bill would do little to resolve these problems — first because the military would not know what to expect after July 31, and would likely continue to sacrifice non-critical priorities in order to make sure it had reserves to keep fighting; and second because much of the money for equipment procurement would be released only in the second wave of funds, after the July vote.
Fortunately, the House bill will probably be dead on arrival in the Senate, where it lacks majority support. The Senate is likely instead to pass a bill that includes benchmarks for political progress in Iraq. The government of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is under no illusions about waning American support for the war, or the difficult choices it must make (in particular, moving forcefully against Shiite militias). But a timetable dictated by Democrats in Congress who live a hemisphere away and have no clear idea of political conditions in Iraq will likely be arbitrary and counterproductive. If U.S. support — which is itself critical to political progress — is conditioned on Iraqis’ meeting the benchmarks, we will risk creating an irreversible spiral toward disaster.
President Bush has expressed openness to the idea of benchmarks, without specifying exactly what sort of benchmarks he could live with. He should insist on benchmarks that will not trigger mandatory consequences — such as the freezing of aid funds to Iraq, or a troop withdrawal — if they are not met. Such consequences could even be included in the bill, provided the president were allowed to waive them.
Whatever form of the bill reaches the president’s desk, it will certainly contain more pork spending than he would like. (Pork was one of the three reasons he gave for vetoing the first supplemental.) We dislike pork too — but we like the idea of winning in Iraq much more. Victory is worth a few billion in farm subsidies, and the president should not issue a second veto for pork alone.
In blocking war funding so far, the Democrats have had help from a few wayward Republicans. Eleven “moderate” House GOP members visited Bush last week to tell him that he was losing the support even of his own party. The private airing of concerns is one thing, but by leaking details of the meeting they only weakened the White House’s negotiating position. And two House Republicans even joined 169 Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal, in a separate House bill that was defeated by a margin of 255–171.
Also among those who voted for that resolution was none other than Mrs. Pelosi. Let there be no question, then, what the Speaker’s position is: Either the war is already lost, or it is not worth winning. She and those who voted with her are unwilling even to give Gen. David Petraeus a chance to prove that his strategy is working, and are apparently indifferent to the sectarian bloodbath that would likely ensue upon an American pullout. For them, victory is not an option.
Ellie
No Way to Win a War
By The Editors
Fresh off President Bush’s veto of an Iraq supplemental with mandated withdrawal dates, Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats have passed another bill that would sabotage the war effort.
On Thursday, the House voted to split war funding into two parts. $42.75 billion — enough to fund operations through July 31 — would be released right now. The president would have to report on progress in Baghdad by July 13, and then a second vote would be required to release the remaining $52.8 billion, which would carry the military through the end of the fiscal year in October. President Bush has pledged to veto this bill if it reaches his desk — as indeed he should. The two-part approach would hobble the military’s ability to conduct operations in Iraq and decrease its readiness worldwide.
To begin with, it would make proper planning impossible for commanders in the field. House Democrats are effectively saying, “You have two months to prove that you are winning, or else . . .” Of course, it’s taking Congress longer than that simply to fund the war, an incomparably easier task. Apart from the unreasonableness of this demand, the bill would probably also guarantee a fiercer foe: Al Qaeda in Iraq would have a strong incentive to step up its terror campaign prior to the next House vote, so as to dispel any sense that U.S. and Iraqi forces are making progress. This is no way to win a war.
Moreover, the two-part approach would prolong the disruption to wider military activities that the funding delay has already caused. While the Democrats have fiddled, the Pentagon has had to slow its spending in various non-Iraq accounts in order to keep paying for the war. As defense secretary Robert Gates recently wrote in a letter to John McCain, this dollar shuffling has meant “deferring repair of equipment, restricting the use of government purchase cards, curtailing travel, freezing certain categories of civilian hiring, cancelling non-critical orders and restraining supply purchases.” The Pentagon hasn’t been able to field new armored vehicles and counter-IED technologies, and its funds to train Iraqi forces have been depleted.
The new House bill would do little to resolve these problems — first because the military would not know what to expect after July 31, and would likely continue to sacrifice non-critical priorities in order to make sure it had reserves to keep fighting; and second because much of the money for equipment procurement would be released only in the second wave of funds, after the July vote.
Fortunately, the House bill will probably be dead on arrival in the Senate, where it lacks majority support. The Senate is likely instead to pass a bill that includes benchmarks for political progress in Iraq. The government of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is under no illusions about waning American support for the war, or the difficult choices it must make (in particular, moving forcefully against Shiite militias). But a timetable dictated by Democrats in Congress who live a hemisphere away and have no clear idea of political conditions in Iraq will likely be arbitrary and counterproductive. If U.S. support — which is itself critical to political progress — is conditioned on Iraqis’ meeting the benchmarks, we will risk creating an irreversible spiral toward disaster.
President Bush has expressed openness to the idea of benchmarks, without specifying exactly what sort of benchmarks he could live with. He should insist on benchmarks that will not trigger mandatory consequences — such as the freezing of aid funds to Iraq, or a troop withdrawal — if they are not met. Such consequences could even be included in the bill, provided the president were allowed to waive them.
Whatever form of the bill reaches the president’s desk, it will certainly contain more pork spending than he would like. (Pork was one of the three reasons he gave for vetoing the first supplemental.) We dislike pork too — but we like the idea of winning in Iraq much more. Victory is worth a few billion in farm subsidies, and the president should not issue a second veto for pork alone.
In blocking war funding so far, the Democrats have had help from a few wayward Republicans. Eleven “moderate” House GOP members visited Bush last week to tell him that he was losing the support even of his own party. The private airing of concerns is one thing, but by leaking details of the meeting they only weakened the White House’s negotiating position. And two House Republicans even joined 169 Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal, in a separate House bill that was defeated by a margin of 255–171.
Also among those who voted for that resolution was none other than Mrs. Pelosi. Let there be no question, then, what the Speaker’s position is: Either the war is already lost, or it is not worth winning. She and those who voted with her are unwilling even to give Gen. David Petraeus a chance to prove that his strategy is working, and are apparently indifferent to the sectarian bloodbath that would likely ensue upon an American pullout. For them, victory is not an option.
Ellie