Serious problems caused by the unserious senators

Opinion Journal:

To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq. What we are witnessing is a Federalist Papers illustration of criticism and micromanagement without responsibility.

Consider the resolution pushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday by Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, two men who would love to be President if only they could persuade enough voters to elect them. Both men voted for the Iraq War. But with that war proving to be more difficult than they thought, they now want to put themselves on record as opposing any further attempts to win it.

Their resolution--which passed 12-9--calls for Iraqis to "reach a political settlement" leading to "reconciliation," as if anyone disagrees with that necessity. But then it declares that the way to accomplish this is to wash American hands of the Iraq effort, proposing that U.S. forces retreat to protect the borders and hunt terrorists. The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will miraculously conclude that they have must settle their differences. A kind of reverse field of dreams: If we don't come, they will build it.

The irony is that this is not all that far from the "light footprint" strategy that the Bush Administration was following last year and which these same Senators called a failure. It is precisely the inability to provide security in Baghdad that has led to greater sectarian violence, especially among Shiites victimized by Sunni car bombs. The purpose of the new Bush counterinsurgency strategy is to provide more security to the population in the hopes of making a political settlement easier.

But then such analysis probably takes this resolution more seriously than most of the Senators do. If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they'd attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort. But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens next. By passing "non-binding resolutions," they can assail Mr. Bush and put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.

...

It is the biggest mistake congress has made since it cut off funds for the defense of South Vietnam. It is clearly not a military strategy since no one in the military has suggested it and not retired general has embraced it. It is strategy by a bunch of posers, with pretensions of military expertise.

These are the same people who just approved Gen. Petraeus for his new post of running the war in Iraq and they immediately reject his advice and come up with this travesty which will offer aid and comfort to the enemy. It does that by giving the enemy hope. We should be concentrating on making him realize that his situation is hopeless. When he realizes that, then he will be ready for a political solution that the posers claim they want. Instead they seem to be concentrating on making our winning hand hopeless.

This Washington Post Editorial also notices the ridiculousness of the Senator's position:

ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy. Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq: A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it.

...

Our guess is that it is Gen. Petraeus's concept that will govern U.S. actions on the ground. Until now, Gen. Petraeus had been the most successful American commander in the war; in that sense senators are right to support him and quickly approve his nomination. But legislators need a better way to act on their opposition to the current policy than the passage of nonbinding resolutions that may cover them politically but have no practical impact -- other than, perhaps, the negative one suggested by the general.

...

The inconsistency of their position seems to have escaped them. This is probably because it is a political position and not one they think they will be held responsible for.