Resolution Opposing Troop Increase is a Bad Move

This past week, the US House of Representatives voted 246-182 to pass a non-binding resolution which states Congress’ opposition to President Bush’s proposed deployment of 21,500 more troops in Iraq. The resolution is short and to the point: “Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.” The Senate failed to pass the same resolution in their chamber as the result of a Republican filibuster.

While the resolution is non-binding, it is none the less significant. As stated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it is a precursor to other resolutions and bills which will seek to alter the President’s handling of the war. But it is significant for another reason as well: the Democrat controlled House has succeeded in undermining America’s mission in Iraq and made it clear to our enemies all over the world that we are not committed as a nation to solving this problem. Instead, Democrats would have the US cut and run- cutting our loses in the near term but eventually leaving an unstable Iraq which will not only become a home for terrorists but a play ground for Iran.

The folly of this resolution can be understood once the importance of succeeding in Iraq is understood. There are a minimum of two reasons why the US must stay in Iraq and win: 1. If you think the blood shed in Iraq is bad now, wait until the US leaves and the Iraqi government collapses as a result. The current Iraqi government is not strong enough or stable enough to govern effectively or at all in the case of American withdrawal. Many times more innocent Iraqi lives will be lost as the result of withdrawal than are dying now. 2. A strong and stable Iraq is a necessary counter-weight to Iran. With President Ahmadinejad seeking nuclear weapons, fostering closer ties with other US rivals like Hugo Chavez and asserting greater influence in the Middle East since the fall of Saddam, it is in the interest of the world to have a strong Iraq next door to him.

Interestingly, while Democrats bemoan the American lives that have been lost in Iraq (and rightfully so), they seem to ignore the 50,000+ Iraqi lives that have been lost as the result of sectarian violence and terrorism. The US has a responsibility to do everything in its power to quell this violence, mainly because we created the stage on which it is played out. If this means sending in 21,500 more troops, then we must do it. Likewise, as Democrats have already begun to criticize President Bush’s supposed saber-rattling against Iran, they fail to realize that for the last several decades, a strong Iraq has been keeping Iran in its place. Since the fall of Saddam, we have seen Iran more aggressively seek nuclear weapons and form closer ties with other American detractors. A strong Iraq could more successfully pressure Iran to stop these actions than the US or any other nation.

While the Democrats have done their damage, they have an opportunity to slightly redeem themselves this week when they will vote on the President’s requested $93 billion for military and war spending. Unfortunately such redemption seems unlikely. Leading Democrats have already said that they will seek to tie Bush’s hands on this appropriation and with Harry Reid’s statement that this week’s non-binding resolution was only a first step in changing policy, it seems the Democrats will dig America in to a deeper hole than it is actually in.