Why Don't We Just Pass a Resolution to Stop the War?

The last posting didn't seem to stop this slow-motion train wreck on national Iraq War policy from continuing, so we'll try again:

While trying to force our 3-D President to change his plodding mind, we seem instead to be embarked like a Capitol-bound cruise missile on a collision course for a constitutional crisis on controlling Bush's war "surge" . This is a lot like the Republicans trying to impeach Clinton; for that matter, it's a lot like what it would be like if the Democrats try to impeach Bush. Doomed to fail, totally symbolic, somewhere between irrelevant and inconvenient with regard to short-term conduct of the war.

The 2008 Presidential candidates seem to be lining up predictably. The many who are in the Senate want to fight it out honorably, in debate of the terms of debate of a non-binding resolution.(1) Those who are not in the Senate but are also running (of both parties) can take a different point of view, saying quite accurately that such a resolution, were it to pass, would not be enough.

The rest of us can't even pretend to do anything about it, in the short term. Essentially, it's already happened.

Twelve, even six months down the road, it's a different story. The Bush Administration has seen the writing on the wall in its new budget: it's included the Iraq war as an ongoing expenditure rather than a special item. They went in with a semi-legitimate figure (given their totally illegitimate war plans) for the first year, then a lowball one for the second. You can guess the rest: it is in controlling the future budget for this misguided adventure that the war will be won, and battle is already engaged--it actually begins in the House.

The target is the rate of spending six months from now, and there are several ways to hit it (without having to vote against providing support to the troops over there). There will be a Congressional consensus that the rate of spending "blood and treasure" will have to slow by early 2008, and that means a "diminution" six months from now (right, Condi?) (2) What the Bushites will say six months from now won't matter then; once the funds are cut, they won't get them back.

The sense of drama some have tried to create around these procedural votes for bringing to the floor a meaningless resolution is entirely unwarranted.


1) I think Chuck Hagel might be the exception, and that may be an explanation for his otherwise incomprehensible vote against bringing the measure to the floor: He is smart enough to figure out that this is not the vehicle to make happen a change that he sincerely wants. The others are playing the issue in the way they think will benefit them in the long run, which is only natural but provides not a clue to identifying a superior strategy.

2) "Augmentation" is what she called the increasing portion of the curve. As a musician, she would be familiar with the augmented chord; its complement is the diminished one.