Confounded politics

They’re sending terribly mixed signals out of Washington this week on the Iraq war, and the results are potentially catastrophic. The Armed Services Committee has unanimously approved Lt. Gen. David Petraeus as the new commander of the Iraq war. But then a contingent of senators of both parties keep criticizing the plan Petraeus is going to put in place next week, and they’re writing and passing official resolutions of disagreement with the policy, just to make it official that they’re against the president.

I’m listening carefully to all sides of this, trying to understand the complexities of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the rest of the dicey Middle East. So I agree with those who say that anyone who doesn’t agree with the current plan has the responsibility to propose an alternative. They are not doing that. It’s easier to attack than to lead, apparently.

Which is the point of this opinion piece yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (subscription service).

To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq. What we are witnessing is a Federalist Papers illustration of criticism and micromanagement without responsibility.

Consider the resolution pushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday by Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, two men who would love to be President if only they could persuade enough voters to elect them. Both men voted for the Iraq War. But with that war proving to be more difficult than they thought, they now want to put themselves on record as opposing any further attempts to win it.

Their resolution — which passed 12-9 — calls for Iraqis to “reach a political settlement” leading to “reconciliation,” as if anyone disagrees with that necessity. But then it declares that the way to accomplish this is to wash American hands of the Iraq effort, proposing that U.S. forces retreat to protect the borders and hunt terrorists. The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will miraculously conclude that they have must settle their differences. A kind of reverse field of dreams: If we don’t come, they will build it.

The irony is that this is not all that far from the “light footprint” strategy that the Bush Administration was following last year and which these same Senators called a failure. It is precisely the inability to provide security in Baghdad that has led to greater sectarian violence, especially among Shiites victimized by Sunni car bombs. The purpose of the new Bush counterinsurgency strategy is to provide more security to the population in the hopes of making a political settlement easier.

But then such analysis probably takes this resolution more seriously than most of the Senators do. If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they’d attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort. But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens next. By passing “non-binding resolutions,” they can assail Mr. Bush and put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.

This is not to say that the resolution won’t have harmful consequences, at home and abroad. At home, it further undermines public support for the Iraq effort. Virginia Republican John Warner even cites a lack of public support to justify his separate non-binding resolution of criticism for Mr. Bush’s troop “surge.” But public pessimism is in part a response to the rhetoric of failure from political leaders like Mr. Warner. The same Senators then wrap their own retreat in the defeatism they helped to promote.

Yes. Exactly. See the intellectual dishonesty of this thinking and behavior? Read that last paragraph again. It’s the ‘perception becomes reality’ syndrome, but more insidious when it’s intentional and politically driven.

In Iraq, all of this undermines the morale of the military and makes their task that much harder on the ground.

That’s the insidious part, and worse because it likely emboldens the enemies and endangers the troops.

Another opinion piece in that same WSJ was appropriately called “Wonder Land,” noting the political and media players who have waged a war against the war, and looking at the consequences.

We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

We’re far down that road at this point, and plunging further.

To pick one amid scores of similar characterizations in the media, the Associated Press wrote from Washington before the State of the Union speech that “Democrats — and even some Republicans — scoffed at his policy.” “Scoff” is a strong word, suggesting eye-rolling ridicule. (The line was so good that the AP ran it after the speech as well, under another writer’s byline, this time from Baghdad.) But of course amid the giddy vapors of mass mockery, they all “support the troops.”

Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia’s foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. “I’ve been pretty worried about what I’ve heard,” Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.

“What concerns me about this,” he said, “is that it’s sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world’s problems aren’t theirs.”

Some of this is politics as usual, but even normal partisanship comes dressed now in the language of apocalypse. 

This has devolved into bitter and ugly politics, and it is destructive.

As a political strategy, unremitting opposition has worked. Approval for the president and the war is low. The GOP lost sight of its ideological lodestars and so control of Congress. But the U.S. still occupies a unique position of power in the world, and we are putting that status at risk by playing politics without a net.

On the “Charlie Rose Show” this month, former Army vice chief of staff Gen. Jack Keane, who supports the counterinsurgency plan being undertaken by Gen. David Petraeus, said in exasperation: “My God, this is the United States. We are the world’s No. 1 superpower. This isn’t about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence a human problem.”

At our current juncture, Gen. Keane’s words probably rub many the wrong way. But there’s a Cassandra-like warning implicit in them. The mood of mass resignation spreading through the body politic is toxic. It is uncharacteristic of Americans under stress. Some might call it realism, but it looks closer to the fatalism of elderly Europe, overwhelmed and exhausted by its burdens, than to the American tradition.

If our government and the elite media can’t rise above their partisan politics, the other Americans under stress can. It’s our duty to be informed and engaged and to call others to that honorable American tradition. Especially our ‘leaders.’