September 13, 2007--Rethinking the Money

The world is in crisis and the Democrats are in a quandary— Last November voters returned them to the majority in both houses of Congress. It was assumed that this represented a referendum on the war in Iraq. All polls showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans were dissatisfied with the deepening stalemate and the relentless climb in the numbers killed and maimed. Thus, the Democrats were charged and primed to lead us in a new direction. But quickly frustration set in and now the Democrats in Congress are even more unpopular than President Bush, including among many members of their so-called base who in frustration are running self-indulgent full-page ads in the New York Times calling General Petraeus’ integrity into question and lambasting Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for their failure to get Congress to pass legislation that would require the beginning of meaningful troop withdrawals. (See the Daily Kos blog for evidence of this.) Tending to get lost is the awareness that once a war gets started all the extraordinary powers that accrue to the Commander in Chief trump almost anything Congress might do. There are 535 of them and only one of him. To carry out military strategy all he really needs to do is commune with himself. He’s the Decider after all. Congress on the other hand needs to mobilize simple and at times super majorities to get anything done. Compounding this quandary is the fact that ten members of Congress are running for the presidency and everything they say or do has to be vetted from the perspective of whether or not it will help or harm their chances. Thus we saw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama acting like pussycats when they questioned General Petraeus earlier this week. God forbid that they appear to be too aggressive toward this “hero” and thus seem not to be “supporting our troops.” To say that the best way to support them is to bring them home safely doesn’t cut it if you’re attempting to seem hyperpatriotic and tough. There are not too many profiles in courage being written these days. But there is one thing everyone says Congress can do—they alone have the power of the purse; and if they could only muster the courage and votes, it is asserted (including by conservatives who are watching with glee as the Democrat twist by their own petard) that they could cut off the funding for the war and thereby end it. (See linked NY Times story about how they are “rethinking the money.”) They are afraid to do so for at least two reasons—One is the fear that a too-precipitous withdrawal would place our troops in harm’s way. Images of the last humiliating days in Saigon haunt their political memories. The other reason is that since everything going on now in Washington is more about the next election than anything else, Democrats do no want to appear to be wimpy. They are struggling to hold onto their base which is decidedly antiwar while at the same time not wanting to alienate the more macho middle that they need to win elections. Thus I have a simple suggestion— The president is asking for $145 billion in supplemental funding for the war in Iraq. Congress is acting as if this is an all-or-nothing proposition—either appropriate all or none of it. But these are not their only options. By my calculations, if this $145 billion is used to pay for the current 160,000 troops and then the 130,000 that will remain after next spring (the president’s plan), this represents an expenditure of about $1.0 million per soldier through next September in that the average troop level for the year will be about 145,000 (160,000 for the next six months and 130,000 thereafter). Thus if Congress were to appropriate “just” $100 billion this would mean that the president would be faced with two clear choices—either spend less for each of the 145,000 soldiers (politically unsustainable) or begin to reduce the average number on the ground for the year to about 100,000. The Pentagon would have to do the exact math. Though the withdraw-now and stay-the-course members of Congress would not be happy, this plan might be able to secure majorities in both houses since this approach could legitimately be represented as a responsible, support-our-troops plan linked to a significant drawdown. Obviously the president would veto the legislation. Congress, then, could refuse to budge. They could pass the same authorization bill over and over again and play out the funding clock as the president is thus far successfully playing out the responsibility clock, with the intention of turning his full mess over to the next president, Democrat or Republican. He’ll be cutting brush in Crawford and, to quote him, "Filling the ol' coffers."