Of Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq War
I must admit that I was of two minds after reading about Nancy Pelosi issuing stern warnings to Gen. David Petraeus regarding his (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s) upcoming testimony before Congress assessing the situation in Iraq. On the one hand, there was an element of common sense to it which held some appeal. It would be in none of our best interests to have military leaders putting a “spin” on the news from the war front just to serve a political master. But then again, Petraeus has thus far impressed me as a fairly straight shooter, unafraid to say things which might not play well with the pundits. As is so often the case, though, “common sense” as it appears to the common man is sometimes not final authority in matters of this scale.
That’s why I was rather confused by Chris Weigant’s glowing endorsement of Ms. Pelosi as The Most Impressive Democrat of the Week at Huffington Post. In his initial praise, he seems to support the Speaker’s choice to chide the General.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has had a good week all around. She’s been standing up for human rights in China, marshalling Democrats to challenge General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker next week on the situation in Iraq, and generally doing a bang-up job of keeping her House in order.
However, later in the article Mr. Wigant seems to back down from this stance. He discusses his disappointment in Carl Levin for pointing out that it is the President’s call as to when and how we exit Iraq.
I also considered Joe Biden and Carl Levin for being quoted saying essentially that there’s no chance of changing the situation in Iraq until there’s a new president in town. Levin’s quote: “Until there’s either a big enough majority in the Senate or a change in the president’s (approach), I don’t see a significant improvement situation improvement [sic] in Iraq“. This is indeed disappointing, but I’m filing it under “don’t shoot the messenger” because while the reality that Bush has succeeded in kicking this particular can down the road for the next guy (or gal), and while it is disappointing to hear Democrats say such things, I believe it to be an accurate picture of the realities involved.
(All Emphasis mine.)
Even speaking as an opponent of the initial invasion of Iraq and a proponent of a timely withdrawal, there are a few realities which I believe we need to keep in mind. Our military leaders do not determine the overall goals and direction of a war. That power is reserved for the Commander in Chief. And, like it or not, until next January that person is George W. Bush. The President decides when and where to go to war. A smart president then steps back and allows the military command to determine the best way to achieve those goals. Should a new person – for example, a President Obama – take the office next year and issue new directives to end the war, the Generals may personally disagree but it will remain their task to pivot and craft the best possible strategy to achieve those updated goals.
Yes, the Congress controls the power of the purse. In theory they could cut off funding for the war entirely. However, this would be political suicide and the Democratic held Congress has yet to show the spine or the tendency toward self-immolation to pull that trigger. Absent such a move, it is still the right and responsibility of the POTUS to set the agenda in Iraq. It is fine and proper for Congressional leaders to express their opinions on the war, along with what they perceive the attitudes of their constituents to be. However we may not want to be so quick to praise the Speaker of the House for trying to dictate terms to our military regarding their performance assessments.
In the event that John McCain wins the November election, Democrats and opponents of the war will be essentially in the same boat. Should they somehow achieve an effective super majority in both the House and Senate, they could opt for the “nuclear option” and cut all funding for the war. That will set the stage for a potentially disastrous showdown between the Executive and Legislative branches and, frankly, I don’t even want to speculate on how it will turn out. If the Dems are serious about ending this war, their best bet is to select a nominee and figure out how to put them in the Oval Office next January.
15 Responses to “Of Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq War”
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Of Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq WarHere’s a quick excerptOf Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq War April 5th, 2008 by JAZZ SHAW I must admit that I was of two minds after reading about Nancy Pelosi issuing stern warnings to Gen. David Petraeus regarding his (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s) upcoming testimony before Congress assessing the situation in Iraq. On the one hand, there was an element of common sense to it which held some appeal. It would be in none of our best interests to have military leaders putting a “spin” on the news from the wa [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Of Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq WarHere’s a quick excerptOf Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq War April 5th, 2008 by JAZZ SHAW I must admit that I was of two minds after reading about Nancy Pelosi issuing stern warnings to Gen. David Petraeus regarding his (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s) upcoming testimony before Congress assessing the situation in Iraq. On the one hand, there was an element of common sense to it which held some appeal. It would be in none of our best interests to have military leaders putting a “spin” on the news from the wa [...]
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Of Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq WarHere’s a quick excerptOf Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq War April 5th, 2008 by JAZZ SHAW I must admit that I was of two minds after reading about Nancy Pelosi issuing stern warnings to Gen. David Petraeus regarding his (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s) upcoming testimony before Congress assessing the situation in Iraq. On the one hand, there was an element of common sense to it which held some appeal. It would be in none of our best interests to have military leaders putting a “spin” on the news from the wa [...]
Finally, someone who sees this situation like I do. (I won't quibble here about my few bones of contention)
Re cutting the purse strings, I would add that doing so would mean a hasty removal of US troops. The end of the war needs very careful planning, and Congress is not is a position to do so; it takes presidential authority to draw up plans. (Clinton's plan is only for withdrawing rroops, not how to end the war).
A whole lot depends on this election (including Supreme Court appointments!!)
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Of Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq WarHere’s a quick excerptOf Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq War April 5th, 2008 by JAZZ SHAW I must admit that I was of two minds after reading about Nancy Pelosi issuing stern warnings to Gen. David Petraeus regarding his (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s) upcoming testimony before Congress assessing the situation in Iraq. On the one hand, there was an element of common sense to it which held some appeal. It would be in none of our best interests to have military leaders putting a “spin” on the news from the wa [...]
The Democrats had invested politically in total failure in Iraq (see comments Sen. Reid etc.) and the failure of the Surge.
Petraeus made the Surge work. In doing so, he played a large role in removing the Iraq War from the Nightly News. That took a Big Stick from the Democrats.
Hence, the Democrats and MoveOn.org tried to kneecap Petraeus before his last testimony. Makes political sense. But that blew up in their faces.
Pelosi is warning Petraeus that he had better deliver Bad News…or else.
Petraeus has generally been a straight shooter. However, in serving his counry, he has also pulled President Bush's cojones out of the fire. Pelosi and the Democrats hate him for that.
The Democrats want total failure in Iraq desperately. It would significantly boost their chances in November.
What other explanation is possible?…when one sees Left Blogs dismissing any sign of success or lowered violence…and frontpaging with barely disguised glee any uptick in violence.
Marlowecan–
I'd be interested in how you define success in Iraq.
I'd be interested in how you define success in Iraq.
Easy, it pisses off Democrats therefor it must be good!
“The surge” did not work. That's a fantasy. It became very clear this week who's responsible for the reduction in violence in Iraq. Sadr. He can turn up or down the violence at will, and our “team” in Iraq cannot contain it. The GOP and some commenters here can spin it all they want, but the clear winner here is Iran and it's Shia brethren. Heck of a job, Georgie.
Marloweccan,
You are speaking on behalf of Democrats by defining what they want?
What a cheap tactic that is. I will refain , however , from making an equally vitriolic list of what the Republicans want., not wanting to slide into that pile of dung.
The surge 'worked' (quotation marks are intentional) to reduce violence somewhat.
That was not the stated mission of the surge. Political reconciliation was the mission, and what we got instead of that was the mini war in Basra, even that being a failure..
Things 'work' always when you keep redefining what it is you're trying to do.
If you want to hit a homerun but you hit a ball up and backwards over the catcher, you can say the swing was successful because the bat connected with the ball. That's the extent of the success of the surge.
Manwhile, the claimed success of the surge is distracting us from dealing with the very eal consequences of the war. Among those, is the separation of Sunnis and Shiia into segregated zones in Baghdad and wlswwhere, making reconciliation even harder than it was.
The homes of the displaced have been taken over by others, leaving them stranded in foreign countries that don't want them and can't afford to host them.
The Us doesn't want them either, judging by admission rates, so we can look forward to refugee camps like thsoe of the Palsitinians, fertile ground for AlQaeda and radicaliztion in general.
The Iraqi government is sitting on piles of money it is not putting to good use within Iraq or outside for its displaced citizens. Since the US should be responsible for what it caused, it will be up to US citizens to foot the bill, yet again.
But presenting the bill is too politically inconvenient for the party of the administration. Thy'd rather sing 'the surge worked' the surge worked'.
The surge worked alright. It worked to create distraction from confronting consequences and for figuring out how to deal with them.
It's so much nicer to live in the la-la land of 'victory' and ''success ' than to take a clear-eyed look at what needs to be done now.
.
The surge did work, and it failed at the same time. The US wants the Iraqi government to be able to pull itself together and have the various factions work together. The surge was supposed to reduce violence so the various parties could concentrate on the larger issue. That is the right goal but the wrong strategy.
The surge worked in that it reduced violence to give a lot of breathing room so the various parties in the government could work on the ultimate goal. However the Iraqis never worked towards that ultimate goal. The Bushies don't understand the deep rivalries of the various Iraqi groups. It is, after all, the US goal to have a democratic government in Iraq, it's not an Iraqi goal. The Iraqis never asked us to come and install a democratic government. Many of the Iraqis may have hated Saddam, but more hate us for invading and destroying their country (and making conditions worse) than Saddam ever did.
Well my whole point is that the Iraqis are not taking ownership to make a democratic government work- they never asked for it and we're shoving it down their throats. The Iraqis are happy to take billions of dollars in (essentially) bribes from the US and use American troops as human shields when it comes to fighting their generations-old sworn enemies.
The Iraqis have issues they need to work out on their own. It will certainly be painful, but we're doing absolutely no good over there.
I think the best approach is to partition Iraq into Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd states. Really Bush keeps the troops in Iraq for two reasons: 1.) Bush saving face and b.) limiting Iranian control in Iraq. Bush knows he has already lost Iraq to the Iranians (Ahmedinejad gets processionals and red carpet welcomes when he visits Iraq whereas any US person who visits gets to wear flak jackets and are under constant security. Bush can't turn this into an Iranian conflict because once neutral reporters start looking at the facts they'll see that Iran has far more influence in Iraq than the US. I'm sure there are more Iraqis who like the Iranians than the US. Bush talks a little about Iran supporting terrorists in Iraq, but that's the extent of it and he doesn't press the issue.
Anyway that's why I think we should partition Iraq- to limit the Iranian influence. Let the Iranians have their Shi'a piece. The Kurds are willing and able to take control of their own piece (which Turkey won't like) and that leaves the Sunnis to their piece.
Otherwise whether we stay or leave there isn't a single dictator strong enough at this point to pull Iraq together (like Saddam). This means that the Iranian influence will continue to grow and the various factions in Iraq will continue to fight.
Whereas I hate to see Iran gain any control over any piece of Iraq, the fact is that they already have that control so the best we can do is limit their influence. If it means the establishment of a Shi'a state that answers to Tehran but which will also stop the violence (won't be a total stop to violence, but it can be reduced to a level where the rebuilding can begin) and allow the US to pull our troops out so American treasury and lives aren't needlessly lost, then I think that's a good compromise. But Bush can't do it because it would mean that he has to admit so many mistakes.
Thanks for the link, and sorry for any confusion. I don't really think it's a contradictory stance, though. I am all for Pelosi and especially the two Democratic presidential candidates (who sit on relevant committees) to aggressively question Petraeus, to make sure he's a “fairly straight shooter” on what is going on. I don't see how this is different from admitting the reality that Bush holds the cards for the next 10 months. I just want to make sure the questions asked are good ones, and are composed to give us an accurate picture. I actually wrote an earlier article of such questions to ask:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008/04/0…
Maybe that will help clarify my position. Anyway, like I said, thanks for the link.
-CW
http://www.chrisweigant.com
[...] reliable and secure email hosting services for businesses.http://www.myasiamail.com/Of Nancy Pelosi and Who Controls the Iraq War – The Moderate Voice2 All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication [...]
Thanks for stopping by and for the clarification, Chris. I'm also all for aggressive questioning to bring out the facts. I'm just not a fan o politicizing the report or the process… by either side.
“I'm also all for aggressive questioning to bring out the facts. I'm just not a fan o politicizing the report or the process… by either side.”
That's a statement everypme would agrree with, in principle.
When it comes to pointing out acts of gratuitous politization, however, it depends very much on who is doing the pointing. . Most debates involve each side accusing the other of just playing politics. Yet , when we agree with what was said or done, we see it as an honorable action in defense of truth or liberty.
Though I don't aree with Pres. Bush about much or anything, I recognzie that in his efforts to maintain support for the war, he has no choice but to resort to some degree of politization, like having troops in the background of his speeches to appeal to patriotism. It's only when he goes too far in partisan attacks that I have a problem with his brand of politization.
Likewise, Pelosi's letter to Petraeus may seem like politiazation to those who have no sympathey for the Democrats' position, but I can see .it as something she almost had to do to show her Party that she is a vigilantl leader.
Bowing to the authority of the Commander in Chief, does not mean his judgment can't be questioned, nor the judgment of his general on the ground.
Interesting how Bush by-passes several layers of command to depend so heavily on one man, Petraeus, . I understand also that the WH nixed interest in having the Baker-Hamilton panel resurrrected to produce another report. It's politics all around. That's the way the world works.
When the future of the nation seems to depend so heavilty on the judgmennt of one man being passed on to the CIC, we have every reason to be wary, and so has Pelosi.