Filibusters and Failure

This isn't going to end well. In case anyone had any doubts about the FUBAR status of the US intervention in Iraq, this week should have put all questions to rest.

The Democratically-controlled Senate set out a few weeks ago to put its members to a vote on the Iraq war, with a non-binding resolution pointed at the issue of the president's proposed "surge” of 21,500 soldiers into Iraq. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV, shown at left), the majority leader, spear-headed the toothless legislation presumably to rub President Bush's nose in the stink of his unpopular surge because it is in direct contradiction to the Iraq Study Group's recommendation as well as the requests of many recently fired military commanders.

The problem was that the resolution had strong language stating that Bush's plan went against “the national interest”, and many Republicans, although they are on record as opposing the troop surge, followed Ronald Reagan's 11^th Commandment that one should not speak ill of a fellow Republican, and were unwilling to sign such a strong condemnation of the president.

Which brings us to Senators Warner (R-VA) and Hagel (R-NE), who along with more moderate Democrats, crafted a watered down resolution which left out the nasty words about “national interest.” Unfortunately, when the bill came up for debate these same Republicans joined their colleagues and voted inexplicably to filibuster their own resolution. Odd? Perhaps, but you're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

The Democrats are barely hanging onto the Senate majority, with their 51^st Senator still in rehab from his cerebral hemorrhage several weeks ago, so apparently only meaningless debates will ever take place. This slim margin is hardly wide enough to fend off any filibuster by even the most conciliatory Republican minority on even the most noncontroversial bill. The Senate is functionally deadlocked.

Every bipartisan group opposes any escalation of the Iraq war, the US public bends 70% against sending more troops into the grinder--- yet the Democratically controlled Senate cannot even pass a simple non-binding resolution stating as much.

And to think that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) wants to go even further and actually end the war! Good luck with that, sir.

We are getting a clearer picture of the (lack of) outcome every day. The president has dithered for 46 months on securing the occupation of Iraq. His administration has consistently presented a pollyannish appraisal at every juncture: in regards to the level of violence, the costs of war, the political fortitude of the Iraqis and now the ability of a troop surge to solve the problems. Bush's surge ain't gonna work and we all know it, but we have to let it play out anyway.

The added problem is that the Senate dithers as much as the president. Bush's stated goal is to kick this can down the road to let the next president solve Iraq; he's said as much. Troop surges are designed to prolong the military phase of the war because Bush has been incapable and unwilling to pursue the political, diplomatic and economic aspects of the war. That heavy lifting is just too hard for our tyro leader.

Bush has pissed off every diplomatic ally we have, with even Great Britain pulling out of Iraq. NATO has been asking for more troops and materiel for Afghanistan, but the US has none to spare. The sectarian political landscape in Iraq looks grimmer every day with violence and heartache passing the break point of any potential conciliation between the factions. And economically Iraq is in shambles with their most highly educated folks refugeed in Jordan and Syria and the infrastructure destroyed.

The President can't run the war and the Democrats are unable to stop it. As the region spirals into chaos nobody can stop the bleeding.