The Democrats' indefensible position on the war

Jonathon Gurwitz:

Never have so many said so much about something that means so little. The lives and welfare of American military personnel are important. The war in Iraq is important. The fate of nations is important. A nonbinding resolution is not.

What exactly was the point of a statement whose authors in the House of Representatives readily admit President Bush can simply ignore?

Oh, yes, it gives members of Congress an opportunity to go on record. That may sound like a blessing to the republic, until you scrutinize exactly what it is that members of Congress are saying.

Consider Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Reyes stated in his floor comments, "There was a time when adding more boots on the ground might have helped secure the streets of Baghdad and the other provinces by dealing with the specific issue of the militias, but the window in which more troops could be an effective tool has closed."

That sounds like a fair criticism, until you read Reyes' comments in an interview with Congressional Quarterly's national security editor in December. Reyes distinguished himself in that interview by demonstrating that after serving five years on the intelligence committee, he failed to grasp basic facts about the conflict in Iraq and the broader Middle East.

Asked whether al-Qaida was a Shiite or Sunni group, he answered, "Predominantly — probably Shiite." He was completely and definitively wrong. In response to a similar question about Hezbollah, he declined to hazard a guess.

And in the same interview, Reyes, a combat veteran, endorsed sending more troops to Iraq. "If it's going to target the militias and eliminate them," a key element in Bush's surge strategy, "I think that's a worthwhile investment." On a temporary basis, he said, "I'm willing to ramp them up by 20,000 or 30,000."

The window of opportunity in Iraq may have suddenly slammed shut in two months, but the one that allows members of Congress to constantly refashion their Iraq war positions is wide open. And in this respect, Reyes — who voted against the original resolution to authorize the use of military force in Iraq — is far from being the most transformable.

...

Reyes really has no defensible position on the war that he barely comprehends. The Democrats were for a surge of troops until the generals asked for one and Bush agreed. If Bush had denied the request for additional troops they would have been for it. They are not people of principal but people of oppositional positions. They are certainly not people of character when it comes to the war in Iraq.