COUNTER SURGE. Here's the short version of President Bush's speech: "Although the horses are out of the barn, I would like to shut the door as loudly and firmly as possible in the hopes that somehow the horses will end up back inside." Many Democrats are critical of the speech, the policy behind it, and the call for escalation as a means to "clear-and-hold" parts of Iraq that may settle down a bit temporarily but are, ultimately, beyond our control. But words are one thing and actions are another, and there seems so far to be more of the former than the latter. The political arguments against Democrats forcefully opposing escalation are manifold: The president has the power to act unilaterally, so trying to stop him is futile anyway; letting him have his "surge" and watching it fail yet again will only further stamp his name on the Iraq war policy; any attempt by Democrats to cut funding will look like a revival of Kerryesque "voted for it before we voted against it" weakness, or of straightforward abandonment of troops in the field. And so on. Cowardice justified by political handicaps is still indefensible. "In two days of reporting on the House and Senate side, it is clear that Democratic leaders are more worried about being tagged as anti-G.I. than being penalized by liberals for not doing all they can to end the war," writes Slate's John Dickerson. Dickerson, who clearly relishes liberal anger at Democrats' calculating fecklessness, may be overstating the case a bit -- but only a bit. The notion that Democrats who permit Bush to send more G.I.'s into an intractable civil war in which they are both an irritant and target is not anti-G.I.; supporting escalation is anti-G.I. Sen. Russ Feingold, who doesn't have his eye on the White House, has it right in a statement out today: "Some will claim that cutting off funding for the war would endanger our brave troops on the ground. Not true. The safety of our service men and women in Iraq is paramount, and we can and should end funding for the war without putting our troops in further danger." When they win, Republicans remind us that "elections have consequences." Bush has an obvious motive to ignore this edict now, but Democrats do not. They need to spend less time worrying about 2008 and remember the results of 2006, which have consequences not only for Bush but for them, too. Opposing escalation is not just the right thing to do, it's a political winner in a country where Bush's war approval rating hovers around 25%. Democrats ought to start trusting their own judgments and show some guts.
--Tom Schaller
