January 24, 2007

Backing Down

And so the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing the sending of more troops to Iraq to execute the Bush administration's new military strategy there. The vote was 12-9, with 11 defeatist Democrats and one retreatist Republican voting to undercut the commander-in-chief at a difficult moment in a war we can not afford to lose.

In doing so, they have sent a signal to the nuke-seeking terror mullahs in Iran, the terror enablers in Syria, the terror financiers in Saudi Arabia, the terror recruiters in Anbar province, the terror allies of Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza, and the terror-apologist Islamist extremists in the suburbs of Paris and London and Madrid and maybe even in your city that the new Democratic majority in Congress has no stomach for the fight.

Well, there you have it. We have come a long way from October 16, 2002, when the full Senate, with heavy Democratic support, voted to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. You can read the resolution yourself.

I've read it and a couple things jumped out at me.

The first is this line: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate..."

Which, you would think, includes re-increasing troop levels if new tactics on the ground require it.

The second thing that jumped out at me is something the resolution did not say. The war resolution contains no caveat, no sub-clause, no exception, no footnote that says, "We authorize this war - unless it turns difficult and bloody."

UPDATE: NOT BACKING DOWN: I'm in total agreement with Hugh Hewitt and committed to support his excellent proposal to put pressure and withdraw future campaign support for any senator who votes for any resolution opposing the President's new Iraq battle strategy. ACK reports that Sen. Alexander may be going wobbly on supporting the commander-in-chief. More here at NashvillePost.com.

Believe General Petreaus!