Opponents of the congressional effort to attach an operational timetable to new funding for our Iraq War and World Improvement Project (IWWIP -- trademark pending) have long since adopted a catchy label for the proposed troop withdrawal schedule. Led by the likes of John McCain, the critics condemn timetables as setting a "surrender date" in the war.
McCain and the critics have one thing right: It's messy for Congress to step into managing the war this way. But there's nothing unconstitutional or unprecedented about it -- in fact, the Constitution gives Congress the power and responsibility, by way of its control of funding, to participate in warmaking decisions on the people's behalf. The "no surrender" types apparently would continue to cede their power and responsibility to an executive who has proven careless and arrogant in its exercise. The timetable critics' alternative -- to continue writing blank checks and waiting for the executive's current plan, or the next, or the one after that, to work -- is an extension of the same plan that's killed thousands of U.S. troops, tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and laid waste to a place that was supposed to turn into the Eden of Mideast democracy.
The "no surrender" types speak of the awful consequences of leaving Iraq "before our work is done." What I'd like to hear someone in Congress talk about is the awful consequences of surrendering again and again to a president who ignores both the lessons of experience and the clear voice of his people.
Technorati Tags: iraq