Next time Nancy Pelosi tries to play politics with funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, she might want to check the newspaper first.
Pelosi announced yesterday that House Democrats would bring a vote, possibly as early as today, to insert a host of mission-hampering conditions into an appropriations bill needed to sustain the American effort.
Her bill would designate $50 billion over the next four months for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – provided that President Bush immediately begin to draw down forces in Iraq, with all major combat operations to end by December 2008.
When Pelosi & Co. tried a similar stunt in May, the administration argued – rightly and persuasively – that Congress needed to give Gen. David Petraeus’ troop surge time to work. Now that all signs indicate it is working, the Democrats’ cut-and-run stubbornness seems all the more out of touch.
Just consider yesterday’s New York Times. In a remarkable interview, Maj.-Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, told the paper that al Qaeda fighters have been completely routed from the city.
American troops, he said, have pacified fully 87 percent of Baghdad, with Shia militias controlling the last remaining holdouts. Murders in the city are down 80 percent since June, and displaced residents are slowly returning home.
To be sure, Fil insists that the peace his forces have brought is both incomplete and fragile: Shia militias remain to be dealt with; Iraq’s political leadership is fractured, and real economic recovery is a long way off.
But while Pelosi sees the remaining challenges as proof that the surge has failed, they instead suggest just what a disaster her proposal could cause.
The moment they see the beginnings of a forced, date-certain U.S. withdrawal, Iraq’s factions – friendly and otherwise – will start hedging their bets. The progress made under Petraeus could be undone in a matter of weeks.
That, in turn, likely would provoke renewed violence – which would certainly generate a spike in American casualties.
Not that that’s any concern to the Democratic leaders. They have a presidential campaign to conduct – the irony being that the president charged with cleaning up Pelosi’s mess might well be a Democrat.
Obstructing a war is easy; fighting one, not so easy.