Science Talk

AnAmericanCitizen · Guest

"too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of
Eisenhower or Lincoln."

EDITORIAL Los Angeles Times
Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?
Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn't micromanage the war.
March 12, 2007

AFTER WEEKS OF internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for
forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an
unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation
passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should.

It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite
another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and
conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had
been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings
or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil
War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military
strategy.

This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only that it should
exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more ardent opponents of the
war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the
national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and
vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They could cut the final checks in six months
or so to give Bush time to manage the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate
Democrats are proposing, revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use
force against Iraq.

But if Congress accepts Bush's argument that there is still hope, however faint, that
the U.S. military can be effective in quelling the sectarian violence, that U.S.
economic aid can yet bring about an improvement in Iraqi lives that won't be bombed
away and that American diplomatic power can be harnessed to pressure Shiites and
Sunnis to make peace — if Congress accepts this, then lawmakers have a duty to let
the president try this "surge and leverage" strategy.

By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in
order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects
remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San
Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society,
with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.

Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best possible endgame to this
very bad war. The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis
and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks. Congress can find many ways to
express its view that U.S. involvement, certainly at this level, must not go on
indefinitely, but it must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this
critical juncture.

Bush's wartime leadership does not inspire much confidence. But he has made
adjustments to his team, and there's little doubt that a few hundred legislators do
not a capable commander in chief make. These aren't partisan judgments — we also
condemned Republican efforts to micromanage President Clinton's conduct of military
operations in the Balkans.

Members of Congress need to act responsibly, debating the essence of the choice the
United States now faces — to stay or go — and putting their money where their mouths
are. But too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of
Eisenhower or Lincoln.