By Staff
President Bush spurned the loud message the November 2006 election sent and a dangerous game of political chicken continues.
"Our Army is at the breaking point," blares Time magazine's April 16 cover because "today's Army was molded for peacetime missions, with occasional spasms of all-out war, not for the lengthy guerrilla campaigns it is waging."
Men and women are being hurried into combat with less training, shorter breaks and disintegrating equipment.
Half of the Army's 43 combat brigades are deployed overseas, with the rest recovering from their latest deployment or preparing for the next one. Those who have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan more than once number 170,000. The Army meets recruitment targets by accepting less qualified people.
In December, for the first time, more troops polled by Army Times disapproved of the president's handling of the war (42 percent) than approved (35 percent).
In the previous presidential election of November 2004, after he invaded Iraq to force regime change in Baghdad, Bush's policy was challenged directly by Sen. John Kerry and Americans re-elected Bush by a solid margin of both popular and electoral votes.
The shift of public opinion as the war went badly justifies Democrats trying to limit the cost by imposing deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces, but that route won't get them around the fundamental fact that until January 2009, George W. Bush is the duly elected commander in chief and he remains committed to waging war in Iraq, even though Gen. David Petraeus says, "A military solution to Iraq is not possible."
What are Democrats to do? Congress has the power of the purse, but they are afraid to use it. They could cut off funding for the troops Bush deployed, but they know how devastating Republicans' portrayal of such an action would be, so they nibble around the edges by redefining the vague mission to supporting and training Iraqi forces to defend themselves.
Democrats took control of Congress because voters demanded a change in Iraq policy. Four years of worsening Iraq turmoil exposed the policy that relied on remaking the region by military means from a White House that scorns diplomacy.
The Democrats' strategy of setting deadlines encourages hard-line insurgents to stonewall and perhaps make a bad Mideast situation even worse.
The Bush administration continues to reject the one approach that might have saved Iraq and avoided a Mideast implosion while uniting Republicans and Democrats around a bipartisan effort.
That is the approach laid out by the Baker Hamilton Iraq Study Group which President Bush immediately ignored last year like a petulant adolescent when the press portrayed its findings as his father's friends coming to his rescue. The president also has an aversion to talking to anyone he doesn't like.
ISG provided a framework with something both parties could get behind, from regional diplomacy with both Iran and Syria to a 2008 target date for withdrawal, but with loopholes if more time was needed. The ISG report would have allowed President Bush's troop surge, for example.
The Washington drama now turns on the impasse from what the Democrats will do with the emergency funding bill Bush requested to continue the conflict.
When it reaches the White House, it will surely be vetoed because of the limitations Democrats attach to use of the funds, and they lack the votes to overcome it.
Instead of worrying about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talking to Damascus, there ought to be direct talks between our own legislative and executive branches acting as Americans instead of politicians given the lives which hang in the balance.
Democrats can start by conceding that unless they stand ready to use their full power to pull the fund plug, our forces will be there so long as Bush's authority to decide otherwise lasts.
For his part, Bush needs to quit ignoring Democratic demands because they are supported by public opinion, such as what requirements are going to be enforced upon our Iraqi allies. He also owes Americans regular, unvarnished briefings on where progress stands.
Bring some commanders home so both sides and the American people can hear it in their own words, unfiltered, what equipment and support our troops need.
If they refuse to set aside their petty party bickering, the American people are reminded daily there's another election in 2008. If Al Qaeda can be patient, so can voters for the kind of change a ballot box can bring. The troops' needs are more urgent, however, than this dangerous game of chicken.