Withdrawal turnabout?

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen

By

Congress has voted to condition funding for America's troops on forcing the president -- and America's military -- to accept an arbitrary date for withdrawal of American troops from a theater of war. That decision is unprecedented and ill-advised. Democrats should reverse course, but Republicans should take no comfort in this. Iraq's endgame lies with tacking into the storm, not running from the wind.

Iraq's current instability represents an international hurricane. The hurricane has potential for wreaking geopolitical havoc well beyond Iraq. The Democratic majority in Congress is a majority because the American people see this storm and cannot foresee its conclusion, despite earnestly trying for four years.

Daily casualties remind Americans the war seems perpetual. To some, this is acceptable; to most, it is not. The president and his current team have, by leaning blithely on Americans' native will to win and a president's constitutional prerogatives, facilitated this misperception.

This war cannot be perpetual. Beyond the casualty count, which remains objectively low but frustratingly high for progress recorded, the U.S. Treasury cannot continue current funding of this engagement. Operational tempo, manning and equipment requirements, armament depletion, lag-times in training, accelerated redeployment and basic readiness issues agree: This war is not indefinitely sustainable.

But that realization is not the same as voting to condition funding for America's troops in war on an arbitrary date for withdrawal of those troops from a theater of war. The distinction is critical.

Understanding the distinction points to a different resolution in Iraq -- one that is more realistic, politically sound, historically grounded and aligned with national security. Forgoing the desire to heap blame, Democrats in Congress must strive to separate politics and war fighting. Great leadership requires reflecting on history.

President James Madison and the Congress that presided over wartime spending during the War of 1812 (which lasted until the armistice in 1815) did not try to tell military commanders William Henry Harrison or Andrew Jackson when to conclude battle, despite major defeats early in the war. America's commitment to war and peace produced stability, if not outright victory.

Permitting military leaders the latitude to prevail produced victories at Tippecanoe and the Battle of New Orleans. What would the British have done if Congress had declared, in 1813, a withdrawal and termination of funding for war efforts beginning in the fall of 1814? They would have fought more ferociously -- and likely won.

What if Congress had chosen not to honor Abraham Lincoln's request for unburdened funding at the apex of our Civil War, instead declaring in 1862 that the Union would no longer fight after the spring of 1863. The Union's back was against the wall. No one in Congress foresaw any turnaround. No one imagined the Union successes at either Gettysburg or Vicksburg in July 1863.

What if President Woodrow Wilson, in addressing the 65th Congress in April 1917, had received only funding conditioned on withdrawal from Europe by a date certain? Even without television, such news would have mightily heartened the kaiser.