2008 Woodie Awards
Non-binding anti-war resolution is counterproductive, harmful
Russell Hardin
Contributing Writer
Issue date: 2/26/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
It is unwise of Congress to tie up legislative time and effort voting on a "non-binding" resolution while hostilities continue in Iraq. The middle of a protracted armed conflict is no place for talk and half-measures, but for solutions.
This sort of legislation does nothing to alleviate the burdens that are already carried by 137,000 American service members currently serving in Iraq. The non-binding resolution also casts doubt among service members of Congress' good will and support for them, discourages potential allies and proclaims to our enemies that America lacks the political will to finish what it starts.
A non-binding resolution is just that. It does not obligate the current administration to act. CBS Congressional correspondent Sharyl Atkisson once likened a non-binding resolution to "a political dare." If Congress is going to spend time on the issue, they should engage in serious debate by offering legislation that requires action. Congress should offer their own alternatives to end hostilities without leaving Iraq in greater chaos than it faces now.
So far, nobody in the House has proposed an alternative other than gradually de-funding the war effort - Rep. Murtha has reportedly called this travesty of a proposal a "slow-bleed" plan - and leaving Iraq to fend for itself. Nobody seems to be willing to consider a credible military presence that will last long enough to see Iraq fully stabilized and able to function on its own.
There is inherent hypocrisy in opposition to an increase in the armed presence in Iraq. From the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 until former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last November, the Bush Administration faced constant criticism that it had not deployed enough troops to successfully stabilize Iraq.
Recently, an increase in the troop presence in Iraq was ordered. The administration's opponents promptly began falling over one another condemning the decision. This stance ignores the fact that the proposed "surge" tallies with advice that Bush's critics have offered repeatedly over the last four years.
This sort of legislation does nothing to alleviate the burdens that are already carried by 137,000 American service members currently serving in Iraq. The non-binding resolution also casts doubt among service members of Congress' good will and support for them, discourages potential allies and proclaims to our enemies that America lacks the political will to finish what it starts.
A non-binding resolution is just that. It does not obligate the current administration to act. CBS Congressional correspondent Sharyl Atkisson once likened a non-binding resolution to "a political dare." If Congress is going to spend time on the issue, they should engage in serious debate by offering legislation that requires action. Congress should offer their own alternatives to end hostilities without leaving Iraq in greater chaos than it faces now.
So far, nobody in the House has proposed an alternative other than gradually de-funding the war effort - Rep. Murtha has reportedly called this travesty of a proposal a "slow-bleed" plan - and leaving Iraq to fend for itself. Nobody seems to be willing to consider a credible military presence that will last long enough to see Iraq fully stabilized and able to function on its own.
There is inherent hypocrisy in opposition to an increase in the armed presence in Iraq. From the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 until former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation last November, the Bush Administration faced constant criticism that it had not deployed enough troops to successfully stabilize Iraq.
Recently, an increase in the troop presence in Iraq was ordered. The administration's opponents promptly began falling over one another condemning the decision. This stance ignores the fact that the proposed "surge" tallies with advice that Bush's critics have offered repeatedly over the last four years.
Be the first to comment on this story