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.