For the past several days, the press and the blogosphere have been full of discussion of the Dems’ including an Iraq withdrawal deadline in a military funding bill, and Bush feeling obliged to actually veto the thing (rather than simply negate it with a signing statement).
And in true centrist, waffling fashion, I have to say that I agree in part with both sides.
- Considering the current political climate, I think it was entirely appropriate for the Democrats to relay the message that the American public doesn’t see value in prolonging our military involvement in Iraq.
- However, by the same token, I think that Bush and his supporters do have a point in that publicizing actual scheduled dates for withdrawal only opens the door to permitting militia and insurgents to better plan their attacks against us and each other
For better or worse, the Bush is the Commander in Chief. While Congress has a duty to act as a check on the President’s actions and to telegraph the people’s wishes to the Executive, it is the job of the Commander in Chief to determine how best to wield the military’s might.
Putting a deadline on withdrawal in a funding bill is not the right way for Congress to exercise its oversight in this matter.
Congress’ options, I think, are either to defund the military, replace the Commander in Chief, or find some other way to pressure the Commander in Chief to do his job better.
The first two of those are probably too extreme in the minds of most folks. So why not pursue the third option? Perhaps, rather than de-funding the military, Congress could pursue other sanctions against the White House.
For example, I’d love to see Congress cut the salary of the President, Vice-President, and cabinet members to the equivalent of minimum wage for the remainder of our part of the Iraq conflict. You retain funding to keep our troops paid equipped to defend themselves, while making the situation uncomfortable enough for key folks in the Executive Branch to perhaps feel more inclined to rectify matters.