Let me just start off by telling you that I think the war ain’t ending any time soon.
You’d think that ending the war should be a cinch, with the Democrats in control of Congress, American public opinion solidly behind them, and the approval ratings of the Republicans and their President in dumps. The surge, however which way you look at it, has failed in its primary mission, which was to allow for the political reconciliation everyone agrees is the only way to solve the conflict. Clearly that has not happened.
The failure of the surge was supposed to turn Republicans against the President, right? But this logic failed to account for the level to which Republicans have lost touch with reality. One-third of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 9-11, and not coincidentally roughly one-third of Americans approve of the job President Bush is doing. These one-third of Americans are clearly the 32% who identify themselves as Republicans. I’m certain that these are the same folks who also think that we’ve found the WMDs and who don’t believe in evolution or global warming. That the Republicans continue to march along with the President like lemmings off a cliff despite all facts to the contrary shouldn’t surprise anyone.
As for the Democrats, it’s a little more complicated but definitely more depressing. There’s been plenty of anger about the failure of Democrats to end the war since that’s what people voted them in for last year. Not to let them off the hook, but I think the vast majority of Democrats in Congress get the fact that Americans want the hell out of Iraq soon.
Primarily the fault lies with the so-called Blue Dog/DLC Democrats who either come from conservative-leaning districts or are still living somewhere between 1980 and 2004. These Democrats might, in their heart of hearts, want to end the war, but they cower in terror at the thought of being labeled "unpatriotic" or "anti-troops". As a result they will timidly acquiesce in whatever the President does with regard to Iraq to avoid being called bad names. Not exactly profiles in courage.
Less so than the Blue Dogs, the fault lies partly with the Democratic leadership. As we all know there aren’t veto-proof majorities in either the House or Senate to cut off funding or pass a bill mandating a withdrawal date. But technically Speaker Pelosi can hold up war funding by simply refusing to allow a vote on war funding to come to the House floor unless it contains a withdrawal provision. But this would require her to tell about one-third of her fellow Democrats to go fuck themselves and she would be seen as holding up war funding all by herself. Unfairly or not, Pelosi would be demonized for thwarting the will of the majority of House members and for attempting an unprecedented power-grab. It would take extraordinary courage and audacity to pull off something like this and I don’t think Pelosi would do it. Not even an abnormally powerful Speaker like a Sam Rayburn or Tip O’Neill would’ve had the balls to do it.
As for the Senate, the majority leader has far less power than the Speaker to prevent bills from coming to the floor for a vote. The most Democrats could do would be to filibuster a war funding bill but that would probably fail since at least 60 Senators (all the Republicans plus a dozen or so centrist or red state Democrats) would vote to cut off debate.
Of course, the other option I haven’t mentioned is the one the Democrats already tried and then aborted in April, which is to keep sending a withdrawal bill to the President until he either signs it or until enough members of Congress eventually come around and sign on to provide a veto-proof majority. For the same reasons why Pelosi would not prevent a war funding bill from coming to a vote, she and Harry Reid would not pursue this strategy. Personally, I think this carries less risk for Pelosi and Reid because they can plausibly argue that they allowed Congress to vote and therefore they’re wouldn’t be thwarting the will of the majority of Congress. To me this is the most plausible option for the Democrats, but I don’t think that Pelosi and Reid will do this, as we saw in May. Like I said, not exactly profiles in courage.
So what happens next? Congress will pass a war funding bill giving Bush all the funds he needs for the foreseeable future. The situation in Iraq will not change. Troops will continue to die. Republicans will take a drubbing next election because they caused the mess in Iraq, but neither they nor President Bush will ever be held accountable. Instead they will pass the buck onto the next President, probably a Democrat. When we finally do get out of Iraq Republicans and ex-President Bush will claim that Democrats lost the war. That is their plan. And because of the realities I outlined above, the Democrats won’t do a damn thing to stop them.
Oh, and because President Bush and the Republicans won’t ever be held accountable for any of this, we’ll probably be doomed to repeat their mistakes some day.
I’m including a poll of what Democrats should do next. Maybe I’m missing another way out of Iraq for the Democrats. If so, please give me your suggestions.