Don’t Blame the Democrats for Failing to End the War
It’s no secret that anti-war voters have been frustrated with the lack of progress that newly empowered Congressional Democrats have had in trying to end the war. These voters answered the call that in order to end the war in Iraq, Democrats needed to be in the majority. Yet, despite their efforts, the war still rages on, Congress keeps approving additional spending and by the time all is said and done, the typical family of four will likely end up paying $20,000 (”Washington Post”).
No one would deny that they have a right to be mad. They sent many new Democrats to Congress in order to end the war, but nothing has happened. Liberal anti-war groups are beginning to feel like the Christian right - used as an election gimmick, while people who gave money to the Democratic Party during the last cycle are withholding their funds until they see some real action.
I empathize with their frustrations, but reality soon sets in and it becomes strikingly clear that in order to end the war, more Democrats need to be elected to Congress. Electing more Republican’s isn’t the solution because when you’re supposed to be strong on defense and national security, the last thing you do to prove your strength is to end the war. Instead, they are seeking ways to better manage the war. Managing the war is not akin to ending the war.
Using the current political map of the Congress as a roadmap, the difficulties in ending the war rests with the US Senate. Whereas in the House, passing a bill or resolution takes 50% plus 1, the US Senate is more complicated. In 2006, the Democrats beat all the odds by capturing 6 new Senate seats. It would have been highly unlikely if not impossible to capture 16 seats in order to have a filibuster proof Senate.
Using the last vote that the Senate took on trying to change the course of the war by essentially starving the military of personnel it needed to conduct the war; Democrats need 4 more votes and hold their own seats in order to prevent a filibuster. There best hope is to pick up seats that many pundits consider to be in play: Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virgina. If they can also pick up seats in Minnesota, Maine, Kentucky and Nebraska, they can strengthen their hand in the event that any of the 6 Republican’s that voted in favor of the measure defected.
According to the latest Cook Political Report, the only seats the Democrats can assuredly count on is Virginia where popular former governor John Warner is running against a highly conservative Republican. Although rated as a toss up, New Hampshire is another seat that is likely to switch parties. Democrats control virtually every branch of state government and more and more people from Massachusetts keep moving there. The likely effect is that New Hampshire will continue to trend Democratic.
Other states in the west are more difficult to tell. New Mexico and Colorado will both have open seats due to retirements. While the west has been slow to trend Democratic, there could be a sudden swell in Democratic voters and a decline in Republican votes given that this is a presidential election and the Democratic base is highly energized and the Republican base is rather depressed. Maine and Minnesota are also difficult to tell. Maine will likely be held by the Republican’s whereas Minnesota, a highly unpredictable state when it comes to politics, could be a surprise.
While there are other questions of major importance in determining the fate of the Iraq war (such as can it be effectively be ended without causing a major civil war or contributing to the spread of sectarian violence), the point made by this post is simple - electing more Democrats to the Senate (and the House) is the best alternative toward changing the nature and course of the Iraq war. Some voters already realize this reality. Joel Tennanbaum of Pennsylvania said it succinctly, “They want to get this stuff done but they don’t have the votes.”
Nothing could be more true or plainly spoken. When the Republican’s didn’t have the votes needed to end the Democratic filibuster on judicial nominees, rather than seek electoral gains, they acted less like the insurgents they claimed to be and more like two year old children by threatening to use the so-called nuclear option and eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominees. Now is not the time for the liberal anti-war groups and wavering independents to act inappropriately and thumb their nose at the Democrats for failing to act. (They have made several attempts, but have constantly been thwarted) By creating discontent and threatening Democratic incumbents with a bloody primary, they are in effect; helping the Republican’s who would like nothing more than to challenge a bruised & battered Democratic candidate.
The reality of war is that it’s impossible to simply end without sometimes creating massive repercussions. Democrats in Congress are attempting to end the war in a proper and orderly fashion. Republican’s may not be harping to the tune of war these days, but they certainly have no illusions of ending it either. The only responsible thing to do then is to ensure that more Democrats are elected to Congress.
Tony can be reached at Tonylnbv@Gmail.com
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Very thoughtful post, but what is all the hurry to end the war when we are actually winning. Wouldn't it be a good idea to wait and see if we can actually make Iraq a democracy instead of handing it over to Iraq or Al Queda. I still don't see what is wrong with this war and don't see any reason for our troops to come home unless the Generals on the ground think so.
I agree; it is not the Democrat's fault. I say this as someone who continues to support the troop presence in Iraq, and does not want to pull out. As I pointed out in a previous post, the Democrats have such a bare majority in the Senate it doesn't even matter that they have a majority.
Actually Stix, We already won the War. George Bush didn't convince the American people to rebuild a country and develop a democratic ally in the Middle East, he convinced us that Saddam Hussein had to go and Iraq's WMDs needed to be secured. Last I checked, Saddam was long and the WMDs were a myth. Mission accomplished, time to get out before this becomes our generation's Vietnam. These people don't wish to help themselves, why should we worry about doing it for them?
Stix, you are not alone. Essentially, it may turn out that the President's detractors - folks who cannot come to terms with a syntax manglin', regime changin' Texan, Christ worshipping hick are the end all be all of the Anti war groups. As realization dawns that W most likely will never run for anything again - they may not be defeatist.
Wow, I guess this site isn't exactly what I blog for if this post is an indication of what is in store. Let's see, I find a put down of the Religious Right (I suppose I qualify), Republicans (I am one) called two-year olds, and there's the support for the end of the war and I'm a member of Vets for Freedom who doesn't support any outcome other than Victory in Iraq. What a major disappointment to read this post. Tony, you are probably a very good person and I do appreciate the fact you weren't an "in your face" person from the left, but I totally disagree with what you say, and I don't spend much time reading the points of view of those who are totally opposite of mine. I'm not into the debate "stuff", I'm into the education "stuff" and the only education I get from this is keeping up with what the other side is doing. Cyber Pastor
It's the saddest irony that just when this battle for Iraq seems to be turning around, and the president is actually sending troops home because of the success we are having - Democrats are looking for any way they can to undermine the momentum we have achieved (with no help from them). Harry Reid declared "The war is lost" before the surge was in place - that's a good indication that he knows how to lose a war, but not how to win one. Lucky for America that he keeps losing his battles against Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Jonathan nailed it - the war ended a long time ago - it's the rebuilding of a country that spent 30 years under totalitarian rule that we are trying to achieve. Historically any other nation would have swept into that country, dethroned its leader, installed a puppet government and shipped all of its oil back home (Remember the USSR?). But not America - we sweep into Iraq, hand its dictator to his people to judge, arrange elections and rebuild the nation's schools, hospitals and powerplants, all without a stealing one barrel of oil. If Bush were 1/10 as evil as the left insists - this country would be flush with oil and gas would be $2 a gallon. But the left believes it's Republicans that create terrorists - so they tear at American resolve so that when we come home defeated they'll be there to remind us that we deserve to lose because we're imperialist, colonialist, and rapacious capitalists. And just like Vietnam, they'll willfully ignore the tragic, murderous consequences of their prepubescent idealism. I wish you no luck, Tony, in getting your votes. But I will pray that the left sets aside the Faustian bargain it has made before your victory spells American defeat.
I think the electorate is not quite mature enough to understand how the Senate works. Yes, most Americans would probably like to get out of Iraq and are disappointed that the Democrats haven't been able to force Bush's hand. Democrats are right to say "they don't have the votes," but then they drop the ball by not elaborating. As far as most Americans are concerned, the Senate and House are controlled by the Democrats, so in their minds, the Democrats are failing to "change course on Iraq." It would be politically wise for them to stress the fact that they only have nominal control of the Senate, at least when it comes to Iraq. Independent Democrat Senator Lieberman votes with the Republicans on Iraq and South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson was in rehabilitation for a large part of the year. So even though the Democrats control the Senate by a razor thin 51-49 majority, the Democrats only had 49 seats while the Republicans essentially had 50 because of Lieberman for most of the year. Republicans had better be careful though because Bush keeps asking for more funding. Where is this money going? And why is so much needed? And what do we have to show for it? And where is this money coming from? Democrats would be wise to bring these questions up, as it would allow them to pivot from not being able to defund the war outright.