Much has been written about the battle in the MSM and the blogosphere, and we will not re-hash all that here. DWSUWF will be content to simply highlight a few speeches that caught our attention, and make a couple of observations. The two most thoughtf…

Apparently, Morrissey is on Victory Caucus’s Board of Governors, as is Hugh Hewitt and Frank Gaffney–yes, the same Frank Gaffney who wrote a column for the Washington Times in which he used a fabricated quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln and argued that certain types of dissent during a time of war is treasonous (The Washington Times has since removed his column).

Frankly, I think Victory Caucus’s decision to campaign against these seventeen Republicans is one of the best things that could happen for the anti-war movement. Many supporters of the war–in congress, in the media, and throughout the blogosphere–have continously tried to make the war into a Democrat versus Republican, liberal versus conservative issue.

War supporters have been quick to criticize Democrats and liberals for opposing the war without acknowledging that some of the war’s leading critics are Republicans, Libertarians, and conservatives. But if the Victory Caucus is successful, anti-war Republicans such as Ron Paul and Walter Jones (who aren’t exactly household names) could soon be as famous in the minds of voters as Senator Chuck Hagel.

The American people have had enough of the rhetoric accusing war opponents of “not supporting our troops”, characterizing withdrawal as “cut and run” and arguing that criticism of the war “emboldens the enemy.” Given that 60% of Americans oppose this war, accusing the seventeen Republicans who voted against the troop surge as being part of the “Bipartisan Defeatist Committee” (as Victory Caucus has done) is likely to further alienate more moderate voters as well as anti-war conservatives.

Why are we listing these members? The Victory Caucus wants to ensure that we find suitable primary opponents for them in 2008. If you live in their districts, we need your help to find people who either support the mission or do something tangible to end it, and not to sit on the sidelines and try to run a war by complaints.

Isn’t it just possible that these representatives are trying to end it, and see this as just the first step? It would be rash and cause unwonted chaos to summarily defund the surge or the war, and it would lead to righteous claims that these politicians did not support the troops in wartime. Hopefully, we have learned from errors made in the ’70’s when abruptly cutting off monies for Vietnam led to massive genocide of our South Vietnamese allies, and to the “killing fields” in Cambodia. The situation over in Iraq is a moral minefield, why rush a radical solution?

Also, these Congressmen may be actually considering the wishes of their constituency, as 70%of Americans think the war is going badly. They may believe that this is the duty mandated to them by our Constitution, and not feel bound by the strictures of a party that demands adherence to a failed CIC, conducting a failed mission.

This vote allowed our representatives to go on record with their views, and the reasoning that supports those views. Did we even hear a discussion like that under one-party rule? Misplaced party loyalty shielded the administration from having to face legitimate criticism of policies that were disasterous for the US and our alliances.

It is shameful and immoral that the president and his party now need to use the morale of our troops and the prospect of an emboldened al queda to try to shut down the debate. Our troops are fighting for the very thing that finally occurred yesterday- dissent within a legislative body in a democracy.

If the Democrats were to defund the surge, they would be immediately blamed for the loss in Iraq, as they were blamed for the loss in Vietnam. I am not surprised that they want to take it slowly and try to build a bipartisan consensus. I am surprised that the GOP, under the guise of wanting to “finish the mission” can ignore the cost of the war, the woeful state of our military, our inability to respond effectively in other trouble spots due to our commitment in Iraq, and the facts on the ground, which seem to indicate that the surge is too little too late. If it had a good chance of working, I feel quite certain that luminaries such as Colin Powell, Gen Casey, Gen Abizaid and the JCS would have given it their full support as military men and patriotic Americans.

Well, domajot, simply cutting back the budget to its pre Iraq war level would do the trick, imho.

“Defunding is for when we really want to call it quits, totally.”

Indeed. Its the ultimate ’stop loss ‘ measure. I think it can’t be finetuned to support troops in secluded bases, but not in the centers. It really is a Yes or No decision. But imho it isn’t off the table. Look at Hoyer’s statement, check the actual wording: “No one ought to come to this floor and say that this Congress, 435 of us, will not support whatever soldier or sailor or Marine is deployed to Iraq…Whether it’s today or tomorrow, they will have our support.”
He’s speaking about the troops, but not about the operation. Imho this doesn’t leave out the possibility to support the troops by redeploying them to their home bases. This is an important difference.

I’m not aware of any way that the surge can be defunded by itself, how each dollar in the war chest can be tracked so exactly.
Defunding is for when we really want to call it quits, totally.

This pressure on the President, if it works properly, should encourage him to start preparing for the next step. He should get serious about a regional strategy. Approval for the surge was obtained from Sunni governemnts only, appearting to be more of an anti Shiite move than a plan to end the strife. He can not ignore Iran forever, not if he is serious about improving the situation in Iraq.

No chance to succeed? The surge is already under way. And the first benchmarks of the timeline the Bush administrations provided have already been missed. Check the quotes Froomkin sampled. The house is totally right in showing the president that they won’t support any unlimited fumbling in Iraq any longer. If the new strategy won’t result in clear successes, the support for the surge really will be cut off. This isn’t hurting the soldiers, quite to the contrary. They will have to be redeployed to the US when the funding is cut off, and nobody can deny they will be much safer there.

This warning sign from the House shows that the time for congreesional oversight has arrived. It’s time for accountability, and for delivering on the promises. Sending more troops to death without any clear cut plan for victory won’t be tolerated any more. And if Bush doesn’t live up to his obligations, the House will make the necessary decisions for him.