According to Arianna Huffington at her web site, Rep. Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania is expressing a desire to explicitly block President Bush from spending money to increase the number of troops serving in Iraq. Given that Bush doesn’t appear ready to listen to advice and/or political pressure, the purse strings may be the only way to exercise any control over the situation in Iraq over the next two years.
For some reason I am viewing this as mixed news. I haven’t seen anyone offer a credible case for why escalating the conflict in Iraq is a good idea, so anything that stops more troops from being exposed to danger over there is a Good Thing. But I think I have an irrational fear that in a year or so, someone is going to say, “We wanted to send more troops, but those Democrats wouldn’t let us. Now look how bad things are.� The empiricist in me wants the current administration and its tactics thoroughly discredited, and wonders if partial victories now might make a complete victory later more difficult to achieve.
Then I say to myself, if the last three years haven’t discredited this administration’s approach to national security, nothing that happens in the next two years is going to make a difference. So take the victories where you can get them. Besides, winning partial victories right now increases the chances that voters will see the Congressional Democrats as being able to get something done, which is a key point going forward.