How far will they go to "support the troops"?

It has long been clear that the Republicans in Congress have been hiding their support of Bush's permanent occupation under the skirts of the notion of "supporting the troops." Well, the Webb amendment has finally forced some sort of separation between those two concepts--and now we finally get to see whether Republican Senators are more loyal to the United States military, or more loyal to Bush.

It's clear where John McCain stands:



Apparently, McCain not only supports Bush's dead-end policy, he's willing to lie about the Constitution in order to get it done.

Webb points out the passage in question on the Constitution, but for the sake of the readers, here is the exact language from Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power to...make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Pretty darn cut and dry, if you ask me.

But even more impressive is what Webb says when the CNN anchor asks about Bush's veto threat:

Let's see if he dares. And the same goes for the Republicans in the Senate. If they really want to filibuster this, let them be on record as obstructing Senate business for hours and hours and hours just to make sure the troops don't get longer leaves of absence. Let them filibuster, Senator Reid. Make it hurt.

For hell's sakes, just send him the same damn bill!

I know other people have said it, but I just want to reemphasize the point in light of the 222-203 vote sustaining the veto.

What troubles me--and many of my fellow Democrats--is this:

Democratic leaders have indicated that a new bill will likely drop withdrawal timelines, but will include benchmarks for the Iraqi government -- measures that are likely to win the support of some Republicans.

Don't even get me started on this. Why exactly is it necessary to win the support of Republicans for this, given the fact that there's only one Republican that matters? It's the Republican party that's out of touch with the country on this--let them go down in flames with their president by continuing to oppose bringing our troops home.

Ok, so we'll have benchmarks for the Iraqi government. And how exactly will those benchmarks be enforced? What exactly is it we're going to say? "You'll either have this much progress made toward disarming the militias by such-and-such date, or we'll wag a finger at you very angrily!"? And how is that any better than what's going on right now? What good is a benchmark without any enforcement mechanism?

Isn't that what the conservatives claimed was wrong with the UN's approach to Iraq in the first place? Then why do they tolerate it here?

For the last time: there is no war to lose.

I've said it before. clammyc has said it. thereisnospoon has said it repeatedly (all separate links). And in light of Senator Reid's recent comments about the Iraq "war" being lost, it's high time someone said it again: THERE IS NO WAR TO LOSE IN IRAQ.

I would have thought that our elected officials would have understood this by now. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that we are not at war with Iraq. We are occupying Iraq and receiving heavy resistance from a variety of insurgent groups with different motivations--many of whom hate each other as well.

That makes a big difference.

We already won the war in Iraq. WHAT WE'RE FAILING MISERABLY AT IS THE OCCUPATION.

To many, it may seem like a minor difference in terminology, but this distinction makes a huge difference when it comes to framing and popular support--and proper use of this frame might just help us not only get our troops home faster, but also increase our election chances in 2008. Here's why.

As you can read in any one of the diaries I linked to above, in a war there are only two outcomes: you win, or you lose. In an occupation, there are also only two outcomes, but they are different: annexation or withdrawal. The only question for an occupying power is what level of losses that power is willing to accept in order to get whatever benefits they're receiving from occupying the country in the first place.

Now, the main reason that the majority of the American public supports withdrawing the troops is because more than four years and over 3,300 sacrificed soldiers later, the people are beginning to realize that this is not, in fact, a "war" where two opposing armies try to outslug and outmaneuver each other like a boxing match and in the end, only one will remain standing. This is not Gettysburg, nor the Ardennes forest. It is, instead, a slow and constant bleeding of money and lives, with no forseeable end in sight--because that's what all occupations are: it's just a question of whether you're getting a good enough return on the investment.

The American public is quickly realizing that the the investment is not worth it, no matter how much the Administration tries to tell them it is. And one of the main ways the Administration and its allies try to convince the American people to keep going is by continuing the idea that this is a war--because wars either end in victory or defeat, and the American people don't like to lose.

The truth is, we're occupying Iraq. And an occupation is a totally different thing from a war. Wars are won or lost based on the troops that fight and the generals that command. Occupations, however, succeed or fail on the basis of much more than military strength: their success is based on large part on the competence of the administration doing the occupying.

So, when Senator Reid says that "the war is lost", what he's implying is that our troops were not good enough for the task--and even if the only reason for that is that the Administration put them in an impossible position, it still doesn't matter. And the reason it doesn't matter is that he's playing into the Administration's meme about the occupation of Iraq still being part of a war that can be won or lost.

This won't make me all that popular around certain parts, but when Senator Reid says that the "war is lost", he sounds like a defeatist. And anyone who supports those comments sounds like a defeatist by extension, no matter how much those comments may be defended in light of the recent uptick in violence.

Instead, what needs to be repeated--over and over again--is that the occupation has failed and is not worth continuing. Americans like to win wars, but they don't like to be seen as occupiers. Not only that, but saying that the occupation has failed puts the blame of the failure squarely where it belongs:

On the Administration, rather than the troops it put into harm's way.

What part of "power of the purse" don't you understand?

Of all the diaries I've written, my favorites are the ones that start off by quoting the Constitution of the United States. So here goes. From Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Now, to me, all of that actually means something--and it was written that way for a reason.

See, it seems to me that the Founding Fathers gave the power of declaring war and funding the military to Congress for one major reason: to prevent a renegade executive from having the power to use the armies of the United States as he or she saw fit, and to make sure that the lives and fortunes of the citizens of the United States would only be sacrificed for a war which had the approval of those same citizens as manifested by their election of Representatives of like mind.

So, when we see something like this from the Executive Branch:

On the one hand, Bush extended an offer to meet with lawmakers Tuesday. On the other, the White House bluntly said it would not be a negotiating session.

it makes it seem remarkably clear that the President clearly does not understand that he is not in any position to dictate terms to Congress. And the reason that he's not in any position to dictate terms to anyone is simple: because it's in the Constitution. In fact, given the power of the purse assigned to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, it is the obligation of the Executive to negotiate with Congress on the terms and conditions of any supplemental funding for military operations.

But Power of the Purse implies something else as well: It is definitely true that the Executive Branch is co-equal to the Legislative Branch and has the authority of veto power. However, if the President, in his co-equal capacity, vetoes the funding decisions of the duly elected Representatives of the people when according to the Constitution it falls under the sole discretion of Congress to raise funds for military operations, that means that Executive Branch is in fact responsible for preventing Congress from doing its job to fund our troops in the field.

This logic would apply universally, but it is true a fortiori when the opinion of the American public stands with Congress and not with the President (which, incidentally, is what led to the election that created this impasse in the first place).

So, while I appreciate it when Reid says:

He has to deal with Congress. We are an independent branch of this government, and by our Constitution we have equal say that he has. And he’s got to listen to us. Because we are speaking for the American people; he isn't.

the fact is that the Majority Leader is actually underplaying his hand. The truth is this: Not only is Congress co-equal; not only does the Congressional bill have the support of the American people; but just as importantly, Congress has the weight of the Constitution and the entire history of United States governance behind it.

That's quite a position of strength. Let's hope our Representatives don't forget it.