The weaknesses I perceive in the Democratic position on the surge debate

Every night when I watch the news or CSPAN I see Republicans blathering their rhetoric about the surge. In my opinion the Democratic position is unnecessarily weak. What are your opinions on the following thoughts?


(1) The surge has already started. The debate will not prevent the on going deployment of force in Baghdad so I believe the marketing of it must be changed to "on going concern" about the wisdom of the strategy. Republicans will no doubt argue that something cannot be objectively judged until its conclusion as a stalling tactic. However we are having the debate at a strange time when not much information can be drawn from any of our actions. Would it not be easier to argue the folly of the surge after a dozen more helicopters and hundred more market bombs in April or May?

(2) What is the Democratic alternative? The choices are the continued status quo which we agree is a failure or something completely different like a Murtha or Biden plan. Apparently a Congressional report exists outlying the problems of "precipitous withdrawal" in regards to Iraqi stability. The existence of such a report inherently supports the Republican position on the face of it to a uninformed listener. Does a report of equal weight exist condemning continued Amerikan deployment in the fashion and the numbers we have carried out since 2003? What exactly is "precipitous withdrawal"? Can it be defined concretely enough so that any plan put forth by Democrats cannot be interpreted by this bi-partisan definition? Even Baker is backsliding on the position of the ISG. From the position he took in December he now denies any dismissal of surge like tactics and every talk-show I have seen him on talks simply about the need for regional partners including Iran which he personally does not think will assist the United States.

(3) How and under what conditions can the surge be shown to have been a failure either in goals or results? If these negative benchmarks can be defined then the Democratic position in the surge debate can be shown to have been prescient and well founded. We know that at some point the Army and Marines will literally have a breakdown both in manpower and equipment beyond which they will no longer be capable of performing a meaningful mission. This point should be publicized and given a measure. The hazy blind optimism that Bushco pushes can be used to sucker people into a ever moving goalpost that will be eventually pushed into the next administration. Proving concrete failure benchmarks within 12-18 months will be of enormous benefit in 2008.


(4) Other avenues

Some opponent of the Iraq war are calling for the power of the purse to curtail military operations. This is commendable but I have questions about to what degree military funding is co-mingled and specifically allocated to what operations. Can a body such as Congress perform the necessary audit work to show that X dollar went to buy Y gallons of gasoline used in a Baghdad military operation? I just don't know how specifically money can be micro managed in a Congressionally approved military theater. At least with Congressional limits put on Cambodia the targets and country were separate entities from those we where then engaging in South and North Vietnam.

Repeal the IWR.
The obvious benefits would to show that the President is committing a blatantly unconstitutional act and could be impeached instantly after 90 days of illegal war making.

Downsides could include a refined more pliant resolution that gives broad authority to Bush similar to what he was asking for around the time of the Lugar-Biden resolution. We score ongoing political and rhetorical points by showing current actions to be increasing out of scope and authorization of the original IWR which supposedly authorized the use of force against the Saddam Hussein regime in the cause of WMD disarmament. The former is dead and the later never existed so by what authority do we continue to use military force in Iraq?

I am not sure exactly what would be necessary to repeal the current IWR resolution but no doubt an outright repeal would be filibustered and it is possible something worse may be passed in its place. This would further under mine legalistic opposition from our side. Also I am ignorant to whether a repeal of law is in itself a new law and therefore subject to Presidential veto.

Just say Bush is bankrupting the country...

I don't think we could get that, especially with Joe Lieberman against us.

(1) The resolution "disapproves" of the surge; it doesn't try to stop it. You can disapprove of something even after it's over - for example, I disapprove of slavery in America. The resolution is a first step. There will be others.

(2) It's not up to the Democrats to bail the Chimp out of his mess. (Poppy already tried and it didn't work, so it's futile anyway.) You're a passenger in a car and the driver takes you right over a cliff. On the way down he turns to you and says "And what's your plan?" It's too late for a plan. A disastrous result was locked in the moment we invaded. We have only a small amount of control over the exact form of the disaster, rather like deciding whether or not to leave your seatbelt fastened as you plummet to your death after being driven off a cliff while protesting loudly, to no avail.

Just my $.02.

The Iraq war is funded by a separate off budget appropriation bill. This bill can be defeated by a simply majority in the house and will end the legal ability of the president to conduct the war. If the executive appropriates other funds to continue the war, he will do so outside of his constitutional authority and proboke a consitutional crisis. Good. Bring it on. This is the only road to peace.

Repeal requires an affirmative vote: a new law repealing the old law must pass in both the house and the senate and would be subject to a veto from the excecutive. Obviously that is not likely to succeed. The house might pass such a law, the senate would be faced with a filibuster, and then if the 60 votes required to get over that hurdle were put together, a veto would require 2/3 of both houses.

A no vote on the next appropriations bill is the only clear direct and viable path to end the war.

I just want to know what defines a "surge dollar" vs. regular expenses. A solider is still paid his wage regardless if he is in Fort Brag or Sadar City.

A truck is going burn the same number of gallons of gasoline per mile regardless of where those miles are traversed. I just don't think you can pull the area or operation costs out as easily as it seems from normal cost requests especially when units are in constant states of rotation.

They have not found the courage to actually oppose the war, even at this late date, even after the overwhelming vote to end the war last November.

The cost of operating an army in the field is far higher than the cost of operating the same army in its barracks. That is why the war is and must be funded by a separate (and fraudulently off budget) appropriations bill.

Yes of course the executive could and probably will take other funds to continue operations in Iraq - and will assert that they have the constitutional authority to do so - which will provoke a constitutional crisis. That crisis needs to happen.

The 'surge' simply increases the burn rate and will require earlier refunding of Iraq operations.

I agree there should be more strength behind the Democrats and that they need to take a more aggressive backbone bearing stance to what they are saying. Our leadership though also is suffering from power shock, having just gotten into power I think it is almost as if they don't quite understand that they are in charge mentally even though they are on paper. Part of the problem may be disbelief since they basically won not for having developed a backbone to stand up and speak the truth without fear of the stones being thrown by the republican attack machine; but, because the American people have gotten so sick of the lies that they decided to listen to those who were speaking so softly in the background.

"Our leadership though also is suffering from power shock, having just gotten into power I think it is almost as if they don't quite understand that they are in charge mentally even though they are on paper."

They were inept and ineffective in opposition, routinely getting out maneuvered by the Republicans, and they are currently inept and ineffective while they are in control of congress. I do not have much hope that this generation of leaders will suddenly improve, although in fairness, Peolosi might, and should be given a chance.

I merely am sitting I can see it as a possibility that they don't quite have the feel yet they have the power they have. I can understand, I found myself in more power than I was before in October suddenly and it has taken me months to mentally transit fro being a peon to being someone who is able to afford to to things like take a vacation and put food on the table without needing food stamps. It takes a while to mentally segway going from being helpless with your hands out for any help to where you have the ability to take care of your own bills.

The main problem is political will and political courage. The real question is, does Congress have the power to stop the Occupation of Iraq and withdraw US troops. If not, then we are in for a terrible couple of years. If Bush continues his war against the Iraqi people, his party will lose in a huge way in '08. But are we callous enough to wait for that? If we do wait for that, are the deaths between now and then to be laid, in part, at the Democrats' door? If everyone knows, right now, that in '08, come hell or high water, the US will withdraw from Iraq, then why wait? The debate on the escalation is a surrogate for the continued Occupation.

It becomes a matter of politics. The only power the Democrats have to stop the Occupation is the money. If the Democrats use that power, the Republics will be able to spin the Democrats' motives and spin the outcome of the action. The Democrats (rightly) do not trust the American people to stand up for doing the right thing, here. That, I think, is the problem. Do the Democrats do the right thing and possibly lose politically or do they do the wrong thing and almost surely win big politically? It is a question regarding the soul of the Party...

"Do the Democrats do the right thing and possibly lose politically or do they do the wrong thing and almost surely win big politically?"

We do not have the courage to do the right thing. Our leaders routinely think themselves into paralysis. They will do nothing, prefering the safe route to doing the right thing, and consequently, rather than a 'sure win in 08', voters will be dismayed at the inaction and be further alienated from the entire political process.

must be done, then what is a voter to do? Vote for the lesser of two evils? I am tired of doing that...