I wrote this as a comment on another blog on Feb 18th. It addresses the debate over the non-binding resolutions. Since posting it, I have frequently referred back to things I wrote at the time, so I am including it as a post here. Taking adavantage of a couple weeks of hindsight, I have highlighted the most relevant points:
"Currently both sides of the debate are based on gross oversimplifications and laced with platitudes. While there is little public support for the hard-line opposition position, hard-line support for the president's position is doing more harm than good especially when it leaves the onus of devising an alternate plan to the other side.
"By leaving it to the war opponents to develop an alternative, war supporters are essentially embracing a policy that has been thoroughly discredited and in which few of them actually have much faith. Thus, the pro-war side does not hold out any promise of victory but just plays up the consequences of defeat. By not pushing their own alternative, the pro-war side implicitly equates support for the war with support for how the president has been and is fighting it.
"Unfortunately, Iraq has been a disaster for the war on terror. It has produced a breeding ground for terrorists and materially aided Al-Qiada in achieving its objectives. It has alienated the publics of the middle east and the world. It has divided the American public and reduced support for the war in Afghanistan. It has worn down the military and wrecked havoc on Iraqi society. It has severely damaged the credibility of the United States and our western institutions.
"Quite frankly, challenging the Democrats to come up with a better alternative sets the bar pretty low. In a situation where the public thinks the president's plan won't work, withdrawal may look like the lesser of two evils. Daring the Democrats to cut funding if they don't like it only legitimizes funding cuts as the logical alternative to the president's strategy and increases the likelihood of people supporting it if events in Iraq don't turn around. The administration (especially Cheney) bears a lot of responsibility not only for painting themselves into a corner but also for pushing Democrats into another corner. Unfortunately, the line of debate between these two corners does not promise to produce a strategy for success, but rather a compromise between two strategies for failure.
"What we need is an evolved position that is less pro-war and more pro-success. There are already several out there from both Republicans and Democrats. When you give these plans fair consideration (that is when you separate them form the surge, no surge debate), they have lots of merit. Just the other day Pat Buchanon was praising Joe Biden for taking the threat of terroism seriously and offering sensible options. We need to stake out some ground for people to say 'I support the war on terror but I want it done right.' "
