Blood on the Tracks

It would be hard to imagine a more venal form of “statesmanship” than that being practiced by the United States Senate with regard to Iraq. In the four-year war, the President’s performance has ranged from childish (flight suit, bring ‘em on) to comprehensively ignorant (de-Ba’athification, Sunni/Shi’a divide) to criminal (instigating war of aggression, use of depleted uranium). But the Congress has not fared much better. It has progressed from utter dereliction to catastrophic meddling.

In 2002, a Congress both prone and supine decided that it must look tough. In particular, those members up for re-election had to look tough. So, in accordance with this divine insight, Congress proceeded to vote its constitutional duty out of existence. Congress and Congress alone holds the authority to declare war, but in 2002 Congress voted to arrogate this most solemn of authorities to the President. To be fair, it made them look really tough.

So, after a co-equal branch of government voted to castrate itself in the interest of avoiding the fulfillment of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, Premier Bush had his war. He had his “mission accomplished” speech. The congress had the solemn pride of “supporting the troops”. But the war forgot to end.

So, four years later, Congress has decided that it wants to play its role. This would have been a masterstroke, say, four years ago. Now it will simply get more people killed. For how has Congress decided to assert its authority? By publicly voting no confidence in an already-initiated military operation and characterizing it as a “last chance”. Brilliant.

The Congress has two roles to play in war. The first responsibility is to decide whether there will be a war at all. Congress voted away this power in 2002. The second role is to fund and provide for armies in the field, or to deny doing so. Congress is not proposing to do this, because that would be….brave. So, Congress refused to make a decision, as required by the constitution, at the beginning of the war and now it has decided that it has no confidence in the war but that it will not use its funding authority to end it, because that would take…balls.

Instead of taking a firm stand on principle, Congress has opted for a masterfully conceived third option. Shortly after thousands of American soldiers are sent into Baghdad for a sustained and decisive confrontation against insurgents and militias, Congress told the world that they had no confidence in this operation and that, as far as they were concerned, this was the “last chance”.

Why? Why on earth would any secular, moderate Iraqi invest any time or effort or trust in the United States and the American-backed government when the American Congress is telling him that it has one foot out the door? If we are telling Iraqis that we have no confidence in our mission, why the fuck would they risk their lives by joining us? And is not the mission itself completely dependent on Iraqis joining us?

I hate this war. It was wrong from day one, and it is bound to end wrong. It was illegal and strategically catastrophic. It is now tactically absurd, militarily unwinable, and politically indecipherable. The way to end the war is to cut off the money. If the Congress, or anyone else, has no confidence in the President’s plan, they should propose cutting off the money. In seeking to avoid real leadership, the Congress has opted for a tactic that literally tells our enemy that we are faltering and retreating, even as more Americans poor into that hellhole. This is not a principled stand. This is cowardice. The shadow of congressional cowardice has hung over this war since its inception, and it will follow our shattered army all the way back home.