More politics as theater in the Feingold-Reid bill: we know the players, but who’s the audience?
The proposed Feingold-Reid bill to cut funding to the Iraqi troops by March of next year was resoundingly defeated in the Senate by a vote of 67 to 29. And yet it gained some previously equivocating adherents: Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The proponents of this bill knew going into the show that it had no chance whatsoever of even passing, much less of surviving the veto it would surely encounter if passed. So, why waste everyone’s time voting on it? The answer is that, as Forbes put it, the vote was “a symbolic measure” designed to crank up pressure on President Bush.
The Times article mentions that the dispute over these bills on funding has taken many weeks of Congress’s time. How nice, especially considering that all of them were known in advance to have either no hope of passing (like the bill in question) or no hope of overriding a veto (like previous ones that have passed).
This is a time-honored political device, and the Democrats sponsoring the bill have every right to use it, of course. It plays very well with their base, and in fact this is why the previously reluctant Obama and Hillary voted for this particular piece of legislation. Democratic Senator Dodd, also running for the Presidency, had thrown out a challenge, highlighting their dilemma: not voting for the bill would cost them in the Democratic primaries, and voting for it could easily cost them votes with moderates if they actually won their party’s nomination.
And so the delicate balancing acts continue. Obama tried a sort of Kerry-esque “I’m sort of for it and sort of against it” routine when he said the bill was not the “best answer” and yet he was supporting it with the idea of sending “a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it’s long past time to change course.”
Mrs. Clinton voted in the interests of party unity, “because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war.”
Perhaps all this playing politics to make a statement is one of the reasons that, although Bush’s approval is in the basement, Congress’s is in the sub-basement.
I’ve never quite understood this “pressure on Bush” business, anyway. Bush is not only known for his stubbornness, he’s on record as telling key Republicans (at least, according to Bob Woodward), “I will not withdraw [from Iraq] even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.” He’s nowhere near down to just the wife and dog, although that country and western scenario seems to be the goal the Democrats have in mind.
Bush, of course, is not running for office again. So that source of pressure is not going to be operating. The other source of pressure would be, of course, how his actions would influence the election of other Republicans in 2008, including whomever the Presidential candidate might be. But somehow I don’t think Bush cares all that much; he sees Iraq as a larger issue.
You might say that’s a flaw in his character. Or you might say it’s what makes his character, and places it above domestic politics in this instance, because the true audience for all this theater isn’t just the tryouts in the boonies, the domestic audience of US voters: it’s the world, and particularly the Arab and Moslem world. They are watching very very carefully, and weighing our resolve and our ability to stand by what we said. And our enemies can only be exceedingly heartened by the way this show is playing so far.
29 out of 96 votes = 30%
Better odds for success than Petraeus gives his surge.
Does that mean the surge is political theater too?
Hello Neo,
I think you are spot-on when you said that Hillary and Obama is playing to their own party. Specifically, they are playing to their Leftist gallery, without whom they cannot win either the nomination nor the election. The Left as we all know has gone clean off the cliff and it seems that the mainstream Democrats are following suit.
A little over a month ago John Edwards was dead in the water in this election. Last presidential election, he presented himself as “Mr. Moderate” who refused to run a negative campaign, only positive. Remember that characteristic gesture of his, all thumbs up?
Well, he suddenly took a turn and now he is “Mr. Leftist”. Of course, no one is calling him on this rank expediency of belief. We’d have to talk about real honor… but that’s another story.
With Edwards’ new makeover, along with his $400 haircut, his campaign is given a new lease on life. Leftists, who believe Hillary and Obama, are too appeasing, too conciliatory— they are flocking to Edwards. And suddenly his numbers are jumping from 15% to 19%, which is in striking range of Obama’s 22%.
My friends and I watched closely what Obama would do. Did he actually mean to run as the party’s moderate, or is he yet another opportunist switching his convictions with the same casual air as a man deciding to eat pork chops rather than pepper steak? From what I understand, even though Obama was against the war from the start, he has held on to the conviction that we shouldn’t name a withdraw date.
Alas, that moderate position has been tossed out the window. Obama’s catering to the Leftists made political sense, siphon votes from Edwards’ rabid Leftists and give some facsimile of being a moderate; thereby, gaining the substantial Leftist votes and some of the moderates. Thus, victory for Obama.
Of course, by following this route, his made a bastard of his previous “beliefs”. Hope and audacity, indeed…
Hillary followed much of the same course, and it seems that the defining characteristic of Democratic Party speech for the moment is their sliming of the English language to slip from one contradiction to the next without appearing to stumble.
Maybe they’ll snap out of it after their primary. Who knows?
galluppoll.com“Perhaps all this playing politics to make a statement is one of the reasons that, although Bush’s approval is in the basement, Congress’s is in the sub-basement.”
Approval of Congress at 29% is not exactly “sub-basement.”
It has been lower.
For example, average approval of [the Republican-controlled] Congress for *all* of 2006 was 25%. Average this year is 7 points higher.
So you may want to look for other reasons.
It is a sad comment that symbolic gestures, non-binding resolutions, and other grandstanding is the best our Democratic leadership can come up with. As Lieberman pointed out, it’s a time for choosing. And their choice has been made.
Were it not for the fact that their actions do in fact have consequences – as Bernard Lewis points out in today’s WSJ – it would, perhaps, be dismissed as politically motivated and little more than that. But as our politics no longer end at the waters edge, the images of Pelosi adorned in hijab do nothing but destroy morale in an already ADHD laced society collectively more interested in their IPod.
At some point, the balance changes and the unavoidable will not longer be avoided. What will they think, generations hence? Not that this was our finest hour.
What will they think, generations hence? Probably that the will of Allah is supreme.
Feingold-Reid wasn’t a “symbolic gesture.” It was a coherent plan for which good arguments have been made. We all know Bush is loathe to admit any mistakes, and supporting any sort of drawdown during his Presidency would be admitting the biggest mistake of all.
Sending a doomed bill to a vote is a standard political measure to find out where everyone stands, and to find out how compromise legislation can be developed. We’re supposed to love democracy and the legislative process, remember?
Have you considered how having fewer troops in Iraq might actually *help* our cause?
There are at least two good reasons for a smaller US force in Iraq.
One is this perception of *occupation* that a large American force brings with it.
Today there are about 140,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, if we brought that number down we could undercut the enemy propaganda that we are after Iraqi resources, or Iraqi bases, or oil, and that in fact we’re really just masquerading as an occupation force.
The second is that we could avoid having the Iraqis becoming too dependent on us – on having American soldiers do everything.
And as our troops do it, those who we really want to do it–the Iraqi Army and police forces–will be happy to just stand by and watch.
UB:
Had you been paying attention to anything other than the MSM for your news, you’d realize that everything you’re thinking a smaller force would bring is already coming to pass (Iraqis “stepping up”, the larger Iraqi populace not seeing the US as an “occupying force”, but actually getting sick of Al Qaeda instead), but since you’re stuck on stupid like the rest of the Dems, you can’t see reality for the fantasy about Iraq that you’ve constructed.
I hope the Democraps continue to think this coarse of action is benificial to them.They will wake up to find that the American People are smarter than they give credit for.How can you be on five sides of every issue?Just ask Hellery,she’ll splanes it all to yous.
iht.comStumbley,
Do you really think the pro war crowd is going to be objective about what’s going on in Iraq?
The surge ain’t making a bit of difference in Iraq, not that it wasn’t a Hail Mary pass to begin with:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/16/news/troops.php
UB, thanks for that excellent defense of Rumsfeld and his reasons for going in with a smaller force to begin with.
Funny though, didn’t you indicate in a previous comment section that you felt the force in Iraq was too small? That Rumsfeld, in fact, should be held accountable for this terrible mismanagement of the war? Especially for persisting with it for so long, despite criticism from the generals and a mounting insurgency in Iraq?
Now Rumsfeld is out and we finally get the troop increase you seemed to be advocating, and suddenly you are advocating Rumsfeld’s position.
The only consistancy I can find in your writings is that if the Bush administration is for it, it must be wrong. Sadly, you are absolutely in tune with Democratic elected officials. Knee-jerk opposition makes for really irresponsible government.
***
Sorry I forgot to mention those weren’t exactly my words about good reasons for force reductions, but rather the ideas of Bush’s new “War Czar,” Gen. Douglas Lute.
He made them awhile ago, but I think it’s refreshing that he is aware of these things, hopefully that will lend a sense of urgency to his mission.
Stumb, I’ll ignore your insult and just say that I know there seems to be some evidence the locals are turning against AQI in Al Anbar, which can only be seen as *very* positive, but it shold be pointed out that that progress cannot be attributed to the surge.
As for Iraqis elsewhere “stepping up” and not seeing the US as occupiers, I know you’re far too busy to cite any evidence, so I won’t even bother to ask.
And Jen, please, read carefully. There is no inconsistency at all: That was then, this is now. Invasion and aftermath, and 4 years later.
Rumsfeld’s penchant for “force transformation” to smaller, “networked” units and “intelligent risk taking” predated Iraq. Considerations of the perception of occupation and dependency of the Iraqis on us had nothing to do with it.
UB:
I’ve said it many times before: Michael Yon, Blackfive, Acute Politics…any of the milbloggers who cover the war in country. Yes, I’m too busy to cite evidence that’s readily available for a move-the-goalposts yutz like you.
Milbloggers? Um…no thanks.
From Blackfive:
Reagan Rules Madison!
POSTED BY UNCLE JIMBO
Just a little bit of pure sweetness for me today. I’m walkin’ towards State St. and I see a kid coming at me with a Reagan t-shirt, and the caption read……….”What He Said”!
Reagan Rules! is what shoulda’ been on the back. Incidentally I think this shows something I am noticing, college kids are now starting to rebel against progressive PC BS. We get an awful lot of .edu IP addresses here at B5 and most aren’t haters. Heck one of our more prolific commenters Ymar is a punk ass college kid and takes care of business. We may be on to something…”
The Democrat political class knows no history beyond the most recent public opinion poll. And they have no vision of the future beyond the next election.
How very sad.
UB:
Then try the Belmont Club or Michael Totten. Stratfor. TMTammes. There are lots of intelligent milblogs. I suppose I could find something equally inane on Kos or DU if I wanted to waste the time.
rangerup.com***
There are lots of intelligent milblogs. I suppose I could find something equally inane on Kos or DU if I wanted to waste the time.
I never go to “Kos” and I have no idea what “DU” is, and I would never think of citing such places as a “source” for information.
Well Totten seems a bit more respectable but I didn’t see a search feature on either to look for evidence that Iraqis are “stepping up” and “not viewing us as an occupation force.”
These “milblogs” seem like gung-ho cheerleader sites, with mostly encouraging or maudlin anecdotes, where it seems that anything that might adversely affect morale would scarcely be acknowledged.
(Honestly I can’t see why you would trust a site to give you accurate information on a war when they sell t-shirts like this.)
If these are the sites most of Neo’s commenters are hanging out at, that explains a lot…
UB:
“t-shirts like this”
You do realize, UB, that Blogads just puts stuff on a site…the blogger has no control over what goes there.
“I didn’t see a search feature on either”
Are you sure you’re not a computer? Do you need to be programmed to search for terms? Does somebody have to tell you exactly where to look to find news?
No wonder you’re out of touch.
Ok thanks, Stumbley, you’ve made a strong case and convinced me – those Iraqis are stepping up!
Jimbo’s practical jokes are hilarious, Stumbley.
UB, the political benefits of keeping a smaller force in Iraq, having a smaller “footprint”, trying not to be seen as an occupier running their country, have been discussed frequently and at length ever since the fall of Baghdad.
These reasons, much more than just Rumsfeld’s penchant for a smaller military, have been the rationale of those (on the right) who have supported our strategy all along and resisted calls (from the right also) for troop increases. This has been central all along to the debate about Iraq taking place among all those who want to win and are trying to figure out the best way to do it.
Now you say “have you considered…” like this just occured to you and no one else. Now. After the troop surge.
And you are still pretending that you didn’t just leave a comment in a previous thread about how Rumsfeld was wrong for not listening to the generals and sending in more troops. What has changed, that should make the strategy of having fewer troops a good one now, but a bad one a year ago? Oh yeah, Bush actually sent in more troops.
armedforcesjournal.com***
Jen wrote:
These reasons, much more than just Rumsfeld’s penchant for a smaller military, have been the rationale of those (on the right) who have supported our strategy all along and resisted calls (from the right also) for troop increases.
There may have been people (Casey, Abizaid) using this as an after-the fact justification, but can you find even one account in which Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, or any one of their advisers uses these reasons as “the” rationale, or even “a major” rationale in planning for the invasion?
Here’s one retired Army officer’s take on it, from an article published in Armed Forces Journal:
The fundamental reason why the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Feith-Cambone cabal forbade the military from planning for a full-scale occupation was straightforward: They feared that any such plan would project high troop numbers, serious financial costs and a lengthy presence – and that the plan would inevitably leak to an already-jumpy Congress. Their attitude was, “Just get the war and everything else will sort itself out.”
It’s widely acknowledged that the occupation was never adequately planned for because Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and their neo-con advisers believed the troops would be “welcomed with flowers” and everyone would just fall in line.
The facts show it took them years to even admit that the occupation was out of control and was a serious insurgency to be dealt with. Remember the *years* we sat through comments like “democracy is untidy,” “oh, it’s just a few stragglers,” “will die out when we get Saddam,” “will die out when we get his sons,” “the last throes,” “turned a corner,” etc.
What has changed, that should make the strategy of having fewer troops a good one now, but a bad one a year ago
Oh, it was a good idea a year ago too (which is when Lute first discussed it). It was obviously a very, very bad idea 4 years ago.
Ub(and Deshawn) has the uncanny ability to put forward arguments that aren’t “his” as though they are, then, when any criticism comes to them, come back and say something like “It’s not really my idea”, as though he doesn’t necessarily support it to begin with, just “putting it out there”. Is there “anything” you believe in yourself?
The only thing Unk cares about is playing the blame game. It is just a game, not something serious that requires project planning and taking responsibility, because to Unk, everyone else is responsible, he isn’t responsible for anything in his eyes.
That’s not a good position to take when the world is dying around you.
Lee! I thought you pawned your computer.
Anyway, it seems to be confusing you that when I make arguments I quote legitimate sources that back up my claims, sorry about that.
Maybe I should follow the protocol around here and just hurl insults “yutz” “stuck on stupid,” and, when pressed, say “go look it up on a blog!” Would you prefer that?
Oh and hey Yammer, way to “TCB”!!! 🙂
UB:
You can always ignore me, you know, if my comments trouble you so.
outsidethewire.comUB:
But since you feel so left out and lonely by not being told where to look, try this one:
http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/outside-the-wire/dora-and-west-rasheed-districts.html
An excerpt, if you feel too stigmatized to read the whole thing:
“Is there hope for Baghdad? Yes. The additional U.S. forces from the surge are already showing limited signs of success. They are not the signs quantified by London or D.C. think tanks.
Every Battalion Commander I talked with gave me the same metrics to measure success–Commerce, people returning to their homes, essential services, kids playing soccer in fields they haven’t played on in 2 years, professionalization of the police and security services.
Those are things that do not fit well in an index and things a person can only see on the ground by going back to the same areas of operation every few months.
Which is why I will be back in Dora and West Rasheed in a few months.”
…but it’s only written by a guy who spent three weeks in the area, instead of a correspondent writing from the green zone for CNN or the NYT, so it can’t be true, right?
Anyway, it seems to be confusing you that when I make arguments I quote legitimate sources that back up my claims, sorry about that.
No amount of legitimacy can make your logic and reasoning less bastardized, Unk.
As you can see Jen, Unk has no interest in actually solving the problems. So long as he perpetuates the problems he can have his fun and cake, but that’s not a good deal for the rest of us. In the US or in Iraq.
They argue out of a servitude to entropy. To degrade and prevent progress, they argue about everything and anything and it matters not what can be done to build up the wall and fix it, what matters to folks like Unk is trying to tear down people and complaining about how the wall isn’t their wall.
UB, you are still just dancing around the issue and avoiding the obvious, because, as others have pointed out, your only objective seems to be blaming the Bush administration.
I happen to agree completely that Rumsfeld was wrong about the number of troops an occupation would take. I hate the fact that the administration was so afraid for so long to even use the term occupation, and they seem clearly to have avoided serious planning for one.
But that was four years ago. In the years of occupation since then the idea of increasing troop strength has been brought up many, many times, and the political, propaganda reasons for limiting the troops have been presented often. You seem not to recognize that when Rumsfeld et al were warning that more troops would mean greater cost and a lengthier occupation that they were keenly aware both of how they would be perceived in the Arab world (as they were constantly battling the perception that we wanted to control Iraq as some sort of colony) and also how much political support we would recieve at home. Furthermore, it was hoped that a limited American military force in Iraq would require Iraqi’s to step up and take over sooner rather than later.
Personally, I think Rumsfeld was wrong, and that we would get more support from the average Iraqi if we did a better job of keeping them safe. Since you seem to keep asking us to blame Rumsfeld and say he was wrong, you would think we would be in agreement, but we are not. In order for you to truly believe Rumsfeld is to blame, you would actually have to have something to blame him for. That is to say, you would have to believe that we need more troops in Iraq. But you dont. You want us to both blame Rumsfeld for not sending enough troops and at the same time believe that less troops is better. I’m sorry, but that’s just idiotic.
Here is the point that you continue to refuse to confront: If we sent in too few troops to do the job, the solution is to send in more troops. If you think we could do the job better with fewer troops, then you are on Rumsfelds side. Oh, I guess there is a third option: you could just want us to fail.
“I’m sorry, but that’s just idiotic.”
See, UB, it’s not just me!
“you could just want us to fail.”
Jen understands, doesn’t she, UB?
Jen, I really believe you are greatly overestimating the impact which consideration of the Iraqis feelings had on Rumsfeld’s (et. al.) desicion-making in planning for the invasion and aftermath. I have provided evidence to the contrary and you have provided none (and I have even searched for it myself, as I often find myself doing around here), yet you keep insisting.
So I guess we will make no further progress on this point.
However you go on to write:
“Here is the point that you continue to refuse to confront: If we sent in too few troops to do the job, the solution is to send in more troops. If you think we could do the job better with fewer troops, then you are on Rumsfelds side.”
Here is where I think your reasoning goes wrong, tell me if you agree. I think the point should more appropriately read as follows:
“If we sent in too few troops to do the job, we should have sent in more troops.”
Can you see how it might not necessarily follow that because sending in 300,000 troops 4 years ago was a good idea, putting them in now is automatically a great idea?
Take a minute to reflect on all the things that have happened since the invasion which might make us think twice before virtually tripling our forces there (if that were even possible now).
UB, who said anything about sending 300,000 troops in now? What I am specifically calling you and democrats like Biden on is your lack of support for the current surge.
Yes, the situation has changed and we can not start now as if we just completed the invasion and nothing else has happened. In fact, perhaps if we had sent in 300,000 troops then we could have been slowly drawing them down all along, who knows! In any case, I don’t care at the moment. You seem to think the most important thing in all this is to pick apart Rumsfeld’s reasons and deprecate them. You aren’t even looking at it from the point of view of finding where we made the mistakes so that we can correct them. You just want to say: “He was wrong and now everything is lost so let’s just go home.” Like we are playing some sort of game, and the buzzer just went off ending the period.
I don’t see how it is any less important to increase security in Iraq now then it has ever been. If the criticism is (now, not just four years ago) that we are not able to quash the insurgency because we do not have enough troops, then the answer is to send more troops. I’m not saying how many, because I don’t know, but I’ll go along with what the military leaders in Iraq say. They are saying something different now than the joint chiefs said before the invasion, because, as you say, things have changed, but they are not suddenly saying that, yeah, fewer troops really was better.
Furthermore, as Stumbley has been at pains to point out, the troop surge is actually improving things. If anything, this should make you and I gratified to know we were right all along. But now, suddenly, you are pining for the old days before the surge and trying to convince us we ought to end it.
Again, to me, it appears that your talent and intellect are being put to use, not to find solutions and advocate for them, but merely to attack anything the Bush administration does.
If I am wrong, and you really only want us to go about things the right way, then please explain to me the current benefits to the U.S., and to the overall war against the islamofascists, of a present pull-out of American troops in Iraq.
Jen wrote:
I don’t see how it is any less important to increase security in Iraq now then it has ever been. If the criticism is (now, not just four years ago) that we are not able to quash the insurgency because we do not have enough troops, then the answer is to send more troops.
Do you see how you are changing your argument? *That* is what is known as “moving the goalposts.”
I’m not saying how many, because I don’t know, but I’ll go along with what the military leaders in Iraq say.
You’ll go along with what they say? Great, so let’s look at what they said about the surge:
On Nov 15, 2006, “Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command…said adding U.S. troops to Iraq would discourage Iraqis from taking the lead in their own security — something he predicted they may be ready to do in as little as 12 months.”
“We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect. But when you look at the overall American force pool that’s available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps,” he said. He later told a House panel that exceeding current troop levels would place “a tremendous strain” on the Army.”
So there is what the Military Leader in Iraq testified regarding a surge. Will you go along with that?
The Joint Chiefs were recommending against a surge. Among other things, specifically:
“[The Joint Chiefs] fear that throwing too much support to the Shiite majority may lead Sunni nations in the region to step up support of Sunni insurgents, and that a crackdown on Iraq’s largest Shiite militia, the Mahdi army, may instigate more interference by Iran.
So, the surge was *not* supported by the Joint Chiefs. Will you go along with what they say?
Once again, Bush ignored the advice of the military, and went with a strategy advocated by the AEI, the same group advocating for the invasion of Iraq in the first place, one of whose members was Paul “hard to imagine” Wolfowitz.
Jen continues:
“Furthermore, as Stumbley has been at pains to point out, the troop surge is actually improving things.”
Sorry Jen, but “milblogs,” though ful of touching stories and upbeat talk, are not a good way to find the whole story.
For example – the article he quotes is talking about the progress that needs to be made in Dora, where “the Sunni areas are filled with trash and sewage.” But it doesn’t say that Dora was one of the neigborhoods included in the previous *surges* in Operation Together Forward, Phases I and II.
*No one* argues that things might not get *temporarily* better during the surge (although as “sectarian violence” has diminshed, other violence is up). The crucial question is what kind of *lasting* effect will the surge have? The historical evidence that it will have a lasting effect is not compelling.
So, that said, will you now agree that:
1. The Chief of CENTCOM and the other Joint Chiefs advised Bush against the surge.
2. A *surge* type crackdown to ensure security in Baghdad has been tried twice previously, and has not worked.
You said you would go along with what they say. Still feel that way?
Jen concludes with the challenge:
“If I am wrong, and you really only want us to go about things the right way, then please explain to me the current benefits to the U.S., and to the overall war against the islamofascists, of a present pull-out of American troops in Iraq.”
Jen, please explain to me where I have advocated for a “present pull-out” of American troops?
I am on record here as supporting the Reid plan, which provides for no such thing as a “present pull-out.”
Consider this:
According to the latest Iraq Report for the DOD, as of February, there were approx 328,700+ Iraqi security forces.
It goes on to say that their most significant shortcoming is in planning and executing logistics and sustainment requirements, something the Ried bill allowed for.
328,000 security forces in Iraq? And our guys are doing extended deployments, three and four times?
Our generals are telling us a surge will be a “tremendous strain” on the military, and Bush does it anyway, because the AEI advised it? The same people who advised going in with the smaller force the first time, again against the Army Chief of Staff’s advice?
Who’s interested in “doing it right”?
defenselink.milsorry, links to:
the AEI report
Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq Report, from the DOD.