It was worth trying to shut down the war by congressional action, but it's time to recognize that it can't happen now and move on with Plan B

"It's fine to urge opposition to the Iraq spending bill, but it's juvenile to toss around threats or make it seem as if voting wrong on this bill means you aren't sincerely against the war. In fact, what's going on inside the Democratic Party now is a family argument about tactics, not principle."
--Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, in a "web-exclusive commentary," "The Case for Gamesmanship"

I've been reading a lot of commentary, and have written some of it myself, denouncing Democrats who failed to oppose to the death the supplemental spending bills allowing Chimpy the Prez to continue his war in Iraq. I've also grown increasingly uncomfortable with the hysterical, absolutist, and all-knowing--even though it's not really all that smart--hectoring.

So when Howie mentioned Jonathan Alter's contrary argument, I went ahead and read it.

Alter makes clear that he has lots of disagreements with aspects of the Democratic congressional leadership's handling of the issue but insists that doesn't change "the elemental fact" "that Democrats may have won the midterms but they lack the votes to end the war in Iraq." They "didn't have anywhere near the votes to override [Bush's] veto [of their bill with a timetable for withdrawal]. Bush and his war might be terribly unpopular, but under our system, he's still holding the high cards."

So why not keep passing bills and letting Chimpy veto them ("the 'Chinese water torture' option backed by John Edwards, among others")? Two reasons, says Alter.

First, the country won't buy it. With a fanciful but persuasive "the kids are hungry" analogy, Alter points out that Republican strategists have been all primed to wage a Memorial Day jihad against Democrats who don't support the troops. "This is not a figment of some spineless Democrat's imagination but the reality of what he or she will face back in the district over Memorial Day."

However unpopular the war may be, anyone who thinks it's possible to survive the charge of not supporting our troops in the country at large is, I would say, completely out of contact with reality. That would be a bloodbath.

Second, Democrats don't even have the votes for the "Chinese water torture" strategy in the Senate--where, remember, they couldn't even pass their own bill without Republican votes.

I think it was worth trying to stop the war this way. It's not theoretically impossible to do so. But I think the people who are now screaming that this is the only acceptable approach have ever been honest, either with themselves or with their screamees, about just how hard this is to do. As we've discovered, real-world conditions simply don't exist at present for this solution.

What about the argument that Democrats have now made this their war?

Sen. Russ Feingold argues that by not voting to cut off funding, Democrats are becoming complicit, and taking co-ownership of the war. Feingold's far-sightedness on the war (he was much more prescient about its folly than I was) deserves great respect. But on this narrow political point, he is mistaken. Democrats who vote to cut off funding can be more easily blamed for the war's failures, especially in swing districts. That's why the leadership is letting members vote their consciences, rather than try to enforce a party line vote that would not prevail in the end, anyway.

So what do we do? What, then, is Alter arguing?

For Democrats, the world of Washington as it is requires a strategy of slowly ratcheting up pressure. They won an important tactical victory by forcing Bush to accept benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government. Those benchmarks will prove useful when the Iraq war is revisited--first in July, when the big Defense Department funding bill comes up, and again in September, when Gen. David Petraeus reports on progress on meeting the benchmarks, or lack thereof, in Baghdad.

I encourage you not to settle for my mini-paraphrase. Here's the full Alter column:

Column/Between the Lines
Jonathan Alter  

 The Case for Gamesmanship

The Democrats' internecine squabbling over the war is a family argument about tactics, not a showdown over principle. The left should remember that.

Web-exclusive commentary
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET May 24, 2007

May 24, 2007--It isn't easy to make the case for capitulation and gamesmanship when human lives are at stake, but I'm going to try. That's because many Americans--especially on the left--don't understand why Democrats in Congress had no choice but to proceed the way they have this week on the war in Iraq.

I undertake this unpleasant task as someone who has been arguing for a while that Democrats need to stiffen their spines. Last summer, for instance, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others then in the minority outlined their 2006 election agenda without focusing on Iraq, I wrote a tough column asserting that ending the war must be the primary issue for Democrats in the midterms.

But it's one thing to be tough; it's another altogether to criticize any member of the party who doesn't vote with MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left as "Dick Cheney Democrats" cruising for a primary challenge, or at least a flaming from the liberal blogosphere. It's fine to urge opposition to the Iraq spending bill, but it's juvenile to toss around threats or make it seem as if voting wrong on this bill means you aren't sincerely against the war. In fact, what's going on inside the Democratic Party now is a family argument about tactics, not principle.

The first thing to understand is that Democrats may have won the midterms but they lack the votes to end the war in Iraq. Some liberals don't seem to get this elemental fact. A bill with a timetable for withdrawal was passed and sent to President Bush's desk. He vetoed it. Democrats didn't have anywhere near the votes to override the veto. Bush and his war might be terribly unpopular, but under our system, he's still holding the high cards.

So why not pass the bill again, have him veto it again, pass it again and have him veto it again--until the votes change? This is the "Chinese water torture" option backed by John Edwards, among others. It sounds gratifying, but there are two big problems with it.

The first is what might be called "the kids are hungry" dilemma. You're in a bad restaurant. Dad sends back the food. The waiter brings the same food back. Dad says it still stinks and sends it back again. He even vows not to pay for the meal. Trouble is, the kids are hungry and dad has promised repeatedly that he will "support the kids" by giving them whatever they need to stay well-nourished.

The whole "support the troops" meme has become a terrible problem for Democrats. Even though, as Glenn Greenwald has argued in Salon, cutting off funding doesn't mean soldiers will have their guns and bullets and armor taken away in the middle of a battle, Americans have been convinced that it does. They want to end the war and support the troops at the same time--i.e., send back the food and still eat.

This is not a figment of some spineless Democrat's imagination but the reality of what he or she will face back in the district over Memorial Day. Democrats who vote to cut funding not only risk getting thrown in the briar patch by Republican hit men in Washington; they also might not be able to satisfy their otherwise antiwar constituents at home.

The second problem is that even if Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wanted to adopt the Chinese-water-torture approach, they don't have the votes for it in the Senate. Not gonna happen now. Pass-veto, pass-veto sounds good for Edwards on the stump but, sadly, bears no relation to reality on the ground in Washington. And the one thing we've learned from Bush's fiasco in Iraq is that we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

For Democrats, the world of Washington as it is requires a strategy of slowly ratcheting up pressure. They won an important tactical victory by forcing Bush to accept benchmarks for performance by the Iraqi government. Those benchmarks will prove useful when the Iraq war is revisited--first in July, when the big Defense Department funding bill comes up, and again in September, when Gen. David Petraeus reports on progress on meeting the benchmarks, or lack thereof, in Baghdad.

I wish the Democrats had played tougher by including Rep. John Murtha's provision that any troops sent to Iraq would have to be better equipped. Bush privately promised to veto that, too, and they should have called his bluff. Vetoing a bill with no timelines, only a readiness requirement, might have been hard for the president, even if Murtha's amendment was, at bottom, a sly move to send fewer troops.

But the point is, reasonable people can disagree over tactics. Sen. Russ Feingold argues that by not voting to cut off funding, Democrats are becoming complicit, and taking co-ownership of the war. Feingold's far-sightedness on the war (he was much more prescient about its folly than I was) deserves great respect. But on this narrow political point, he is mistaken. Democrats who vote to cut off funding can be more easily blamed for the war's failures, especially in swing districts. That's why the leadership is letting members vote their consciences, rather than try to enforce a party line vote that would not prevail in the end, anyway. Pelosi's position is the right one--she's voting against the bill but not trying to make others do the same.

Would it be preferable if the Democrats hadn't prevented floor amendments, split the House bill in two and added domestic sweeteners? Sure, but this is politics, not the movies. It's the art of the possible. Elected representatives who recognize that reality deserve better than to be called "Dick Cheney Democrats."ve called his bluff. Vetoing a bill with no timelines, only a readiness requirement, might have been hard for the president, even if Murtha's amendment was, at bottom, a sly move to send fewer troops.

But the point is, reasonable people can disagree over tactics. Sen. Russ Feingold argues that by not voting to cut off funding, Democrats are becoming complicit, and taking co-ownership of the war. Feingold's far-sightedness on the war (he was much more prescient about its folly than I was) deserves great respect. But on this narrow political point, he is mistaken. Democrats who vote to cut off funding can be more easily blamed for the war's failures, especially in swing districts. That's why the leadership is letting members vote their consciences, rather than try to enforce a party line vote that would not prevail in the end, anyway. Pelosi's position is the right one--she's voting against the bill but not trying to make others do the same.

Would it be preferable if the Democrats hadn't prevented floor amendments, split the House bill in two and added domestic sweeteners? Sure, but this is politics, not the movies. It's the art of the possible. Elected representatives who recognize that reality deserve better than to be called "Dick Cheney Democrats."