Right Wing Nut House

Under enormous pressure from the netnuts and other liberal activists, it appears that the Democratic leadership is caving in and is going to try and cut off funding for more troops in Iraq:

Senior House Democrats said yesterday that they will attempt to derail funding for President Bush’s proposal to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, setting up what could become the most significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over military policy since the Vietnam War.

Senate Democrats at the same time will seek bipartisan support for a nonbinding resolution opposing the president’s plan, possibly as early as next week, in what some party officials see as the first step in a strategy aimed at isolating Bush politically and forcing the beginning of a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict.

The bold plans reflect the Democrats’ belief that the public has abandoned Bush on the war and that the American people will have little patience for an escalation of the U.S. military presence in Iraq. But the moves carry clear risks for a party that suffered politically for pushing to end an unpopular war in Vietnam three decades ago, and Democratic leaders hope to avoid a similar fate over the conflict in Iraq.

The trick for the Dems is to walk the fine line between dissing the Commander in Chief and hurting the troops. For the former, I don’t think the American people could care one way or another. But the quickest way for the Democrats to lose their majority would be the appearance that they were abandoning the troops in the field.

Indeed, it is going to be very hard to separate defunding the “surge” and cutting funds to the troops already there:

House Democratic leaders have said they will not use the power of the purse in any way that would harm troops in the field, a position that had run afoul of the party’s liberal activists. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said that pledge is being calibrated to apply only to troops in the field now.

Tauscher said Democratic policy must “satisfy the American people that we’re putting a speed bump in front of the president that will actually hold,” adding: “The White House is used to doing business on their own, but they’re realizing things have changed. This is vastly different.”

House Democrats also expect to introduce soon a resolution of disapproval for Bush’s new policy but have moved farther than Senate Democrats toward an outright funding confrontation with the White House.

That “speed bump” also has perils for the majority. Suppose Bush surprises us and actually convinces a sizable portion of the American people that his surge is necessary? The obstructionist party during wartime - even during an unpopular war - never fares very well. Don’t believe me? Let’s email the Whig party and ask them what they think. After opposing the Mexican War, the election of 1848 was the beginning of the end for them.

By far the biggest risk the Democrats take in blocking the surge is in promoting the perception that they don’t want to “win” the war. Even though a majority of Americans believe we are losing in Iraq that doesn’t mean that a majority accepts their view that we’ve already lost. So if the Democrats can fool the people into thinking that they still support the concept of “winning,” and can portray their obstruction of the surge as part of a strategy that will lead to “victory,” (or at least avoid “defeat”), there should be plenty of support for blocking the President’s plan to send more troops to Iraq - at least in the House.

I don’t think the Senate will go along with any attempt to deny funds for a surge - at least at this point. It’s hard to say what another week of pressure from the Kossacks and other netnuts will do to that prediction. If, as this article points out, the Dem strategy is to isolate Bush by going on record opposing the surge while working to deny funds for the move at the same time, it is possible that support for Bush will collapse in both the House and the Senate and even the GOP will begin scrambling for an out on Iraq.

It will be very difficult to keep Bush from sending those extra men. And any effort to deny him those troops by the Democrats is fraught with danger. But support for the war is at such a low ebb and support for Bush even lower, the Dems just might be tempted to flex some muscle and start running the war their own way.