At first, four years ago, Congress supported, indeed authorized, President Bush’s strategy for Iraq. Then came years of inexplicable silence – no hearings, no oversight, no nothing. Yesterday, confronting the president’s plan for an expansion of the Iraq war, the House of Representatives delivered a symbolic rebuke.
All this in concert with public sentiment, which has turned firmly against the war.
We hope the president will listen to these voices of dissent and sharpen the effort to stabilize Iraq and wrap up the troubled aftermath of the 2003 invasion. The vote of no confidence in the president’s surge strategy should send military planners and diplomats back to the drawing board.
The House is sending President Bush a simple message: He has lost the support of the public. The president has defended his policy without hesitation in recent days, but the White House must know that a costly and complicated war cannot be executed easily in the face of widespread domestic opposition.
Any sense that the Democrats are stirring up the current resistance misses the point. The public is leading this charge. Most Americans oppose the war, and a significant majority – 63 percent – oppose the January decision to dispatch 21,500 more troops, according to recent polling.
It’s not as if the public hasn’t been patient, but a string of military setbacks, a rising death toll and the sectarian violence among Iraqi factions have soured the war effort.
In the beginning, the public supported the war, as did Congress, given the facts put forth. Nearly four years later, it’s commonly understood that the stated justification for the war was based on errant intelligence. Saddam Hussein harbored no weapons of mass destruction and he was not in league with the al-Qaeda terror network.
As the facts came to light, opposition to the war grew. Yet Republican congressional leaders refused to exercise oversight over funding or strategy. Voters toppled the GOP majority last November, inspiring skeptics to express public unrest with a war that the president and the Pentagon never were able to properly manage.
Friday’s vote may also reflect fears that the administration may be drifting toward a showdown with Iran.
Friday’s non-binding House resolution supports U.S. soldiers in Iraq while opposing the president’s plan to deploy more troops largely to quell sectarian violence. Some 17 Republicans joined the Democrats on the 246-182 vote. The resolution doesn’t prevent President Bush from continuing to deploy troops to Iraq, but we hope he will re-examine both strategy and timetable in deference to majority sentiment. Supporters clearly hope the resolution is a first step toward bringing the troops home.
“The bipartisan resolution today may be non-binding, but it will send a strong message to the president,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.
During debate, many Republicans warned that passage of the resolution could spur Democrats to cut off funding.
“Their so-called slow bleed approach is the bite that will surely hurt those fighting under America’s flag overseas,” said Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. “This non-binding resolution is the first step in an all-too-binding spiral toward defeat in a fight that we cannot afford to lose.”
There is little sentiment to cut off funding, but some lawmakers hope to have a say in how war monies are spent. Ex-Marine Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., is rewriting the president’s $93 billion spending request to impose standards of readiness, training and rest for the troops. It’s a tricky matter. Congress needs to take care not to micromanage the war effort beyond its funding and oversight responsibilities.
The House vote paved the way for senators to take up Iraq today, but a recent effort to take up an Iraq resolution suffered a partisan impasse. The Senate should take measure of public expectations and join the debate.
