The Vote for Endless War

On Tuesday, December 18, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate combined to give President Bush $70 billion to carry the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into next summer. Only 23 Democrats and one independent supported an amendment by Senator Feingold that would have required the safe redeployment of troops from Iraq. Here are the senators who voted to end the war:

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Next summer, when the money runs out, a cutoff of funds will be unimaginable. The election will be too close. So our troops are committed till the end of the president's term; after all the talk, the Democrats have ended by obeying him. This capitulation marks the climax of one of the most extraordinary displays in history of a complex phenomenon: power wielded in the face of popular rejection, and power surrendered in spite of overwhelming public support. A president whose policy was disapproved by more than half of the American people chose to defy a majority whose midterm victory he himself had called "a rout." And the majority, saying they wished things were different, pleading the necessity of 60 rather than 50 votes, but never exacting reprisals or driving a hard bargain against defectors from their own ranks--the majority, again and again, backed down.

This definitive result of the 110th Congress will confirm the popular feeling that George W. Bush believes in his disaster more than the Democrats believe in anything.

Some day, an inspired historian will answer the question what the Democrats of the new majority in Congress were thinking in the months of December 2006 and January 2007. For consider their position. The report of the Iraq Study Group had lately told the president to pull back from Iraq; numbers of generals and retired military officers had registered their dissent from the war (a thing unheard-of in earlier wars); the party had on its side the good will of the public and the suffrage of the licensed experts. And then? The Democrats sat, and watched, and waited. They talked about their social policies. They knew if they waited long enough, the next move on Iraq would be the president's; and this apparently was what they wanted. They knew that his next move would be to widen the war. They had decided by February that they would not stop him.

Those who appeared most consequential in the scene were not the real movers. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can hardly have carried as much weight in these larger deliberations as Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. Senator Clinton outranked Senator Reid in fame, fortune, and influence; she was the apparent candidate by acclamation for the presidential race in 2008; and her desires, however conveyed, would count for more than those of an obscure and hesitant lawmaker. Rahm Emanuel had taken credit for the winning election strategy of 2006. Ascending with the majority, he avoided the substantial issue of Iraq, and addressed the need to get the best armor for the soldiers already there. Emanuel talked about armor, and soon Pelosi was talking about armor. All the while, on the floor of the Senate and in public speeches, Hillary Clinton gave her best energies to free the president to go after Iran.

If the Clinton-Emanuel axis is indeed a more accurate clue to the workings of the party than Reid-Pelosi, one may well ask what guided the accommodation of the Bush policy through 2007 by the de facto leaders of the opposition.

The premise on which, in fact, the two parties for all their differences seem now impressively unified, is the projection of American power in the Middle East. Whose interest does that serve? The list is long, and the proportions impossible to gauge. There are the oil companies (the province of Cheney and Bush), greedy for the last of a dwindling resource. Another half-century of profits is worth much more than a war to them. There is also Israel, with its largely uncritical American backers, including political supporters in both parties and financial supporters without whom the Democrats are lost (Senator Clinton in particular). Add to these the arms industry and the security bubble of the 2000s--from cluster bombs to retina scanners--alike dependent on the maintenance of this war and the urgency of the next, whatever the next may be.

Four superbases, we were told in 2003, were to be built for Americans in Iraq, but now there are five or six. As Clinton and Emanuel know, those bases are meant to be permanent. They will not be used only to secure Iraq and intimidate Iran, but to harry Russia by way of the friendly belt of former republics, and to raise a bulwark against the growing power of China. The missile interceptors we want to install in Poland and the radar station in the Czech Republic, about which Vladimir Putin was said to be unreasonably exercised, could indeed seem, to a suspicious eye, part of the same broad strategy. Camp Bondsteel, built on 955 acres in Kosovo, might also be supposed to make some contribution. The vice president is not the only American who does not want the Cold War to be over.

To judge by the votes of the 110th Congress, and by what has and has not been said on the campaign trail, some understandings are now clearly in place. The main agreement concerns what is not to be said. If either Clinton or Obama is the Democratic nominee, and if no new insurgency erupts, the Iraq war will drop away completely as an issue of the presidential race in 2008. To have prophesied this a year ago would have seemed fantastic; but the soothing indications are already being slotted in. Baghdad is now said to be "quieter." We are shown few pictures of American soldiers and fewer still of Iraqi civilians. The New York Times ran its story about the $70 billion appropriations vote on page 24. Nevertheless, December 18 will be remembered. It was the day when a thirteen- month contract was signed, and the domestic powers told us that nothing more could be done about this. Go back to the economy, they said, and the mortgage crisis, and the role of religion in politics and the views of undecided voters about gay marriage. While you are talking, the Vatican-sized embassy in Baghdad will be completed, and the superbases will go up. The next step will have been taken for projection of American power in the Middle East.

When did we agree to this? At what time, and in what place? The United States, for the first time in our history, is more feared than it is trusted, and more hated than it is feared. And the opposition does not dare to think aloud about the reasons.

Comments

[Kontessa]

Jesus God, I'm disgusted.
How irresponsible can these pathetic Democrat candidates be?
Clinton, Biden, Dodd and Obama should be KICKED OUT of the Senate for dereliction of duty. How can these phoneys, with straight faces, even begin to ask for our votes and respect when they can't and won't do what they are being paid to be doing right now?

Next time we hear them bloviating on tv about how they'd do this or that, bla bla bla, just remember how they shirked their repsonsiblility to the nation, in the face of a smirking, murdering, fascist president and Republican party, steamrolling over everything in our govt., our nation and our lives.
They can go to hell.

Wasn't it Dodd who just last week was on tv, sanctimoniously blathering on about selflessly go back to D.C. to filibuster a rightwing, Nazi bill? Didn't last long, did it, Chris. So pathetic when we all know you'll NEVER win any primary at all, Neither will Biden.

[AxelDC]

How sad that Bush believes in his perverse fantasy more than Democrats believe in the reality of polls that show people want them to stand up to Bush and that Bush is leading this country to ruin. An opposition party is supposed to oppose, not enable, an unpopular and deranged leader.

[tonyinstpete]

THE FACT IS THAT NANCY PELOSI IS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION THE MOST POWERFUL ELECTED DEMOCRAT. SHE HAS BEEN A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT FROM THE MOMENT SHE UNILATERALLY TOOK IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH/CHENEY "OFF THE TABLE"

ONE COMMENT ON THIS BLOG SUGGESTED THAT WE ALL NEED TO TAKE TO THE STREETS. THAT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT IN THE HUGE AUTOMOBILE DOMINATED SPRAWL THAT MOST OF US LIVE IN!

AS AN EX-SAN FRANCISCAN, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THAT OF ALL CITIES, NANCY PELOSI HAS NOT MET WITH MORE HOMETOWN PROTEST. SHE MAY BE A NICE PERSON, BUT SHE HAS LET DOWN BUT HER OWN CONSTITUENTS AND THE WIDER U.S. SAN FRANCISCO IS THE ONE CITY WHERE A REPUBLICAN IS NOT LIKELY TO WIN IF THERE IS A SERIOUS CONTEST TO HER?
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH A PRIMARY CONTEST AGAINST PELOSI???

[lastams]

Good post.
The issue has already dropped away from the news.
The British pull out from Basra warranted a whole ten seconds on NBC, and war protests are not covered at all.
What we are seeing in this election cycle are status quo politicans supported by a status quo media. How can we expect things to change when all the players are on the same team?

[underdog]

EXACTLY.

The only reason one should align oneself with a "party" is too bring to bear the power of cohesion.

The old "you better vote for us, or the republicans will get their way" argument doesn't work anymore because, get this....
the democrats as a party, pretty much let them have their way 99% of the time.

The last straw came WAY before the Mukasey fiasco, and this latest vote only adds fuel to the fire under my ass to get to the rigged polls to vote for anybody NOT having a D or R after his/her name.

[zjr909]

The only thing that can save Americans from themselves is if global warming speeds up so fast that the dire consequences predicted start happening before November 2008. That way, the good voters of America will be forced to scrap ALL the present leading candidates and get someone whose constitution consists more of flesh and less of plastic. The sickening fact is, most people don't really care what the candidates say about anything because it's a given that the moment they're elected they'll fall right in line with the corporate game-plan. If Clinton and Emanuel have greater input than Reid and Pelosi, that's only because Clinton and Emanuel have bigger backers and spill fewer drops of the water they carry for their masters. What happens if NOTHING the Democrats appear to be attempting (restoring Habeus Corpus; ending torture; etc) comes to fruition by November 2008? Should we still hold our noses and place our vote for "the lesser of the two evils?" - on the chance that, maybe, if the Dems have the Congress and White House, good things will start to happen? Or should we all just stay home, and leave the voting to those who have a stake in America? That's the real question facing voters in 2008. Vote, and possibly become an enabler; or stay home, and watch the very worst of the bad choices take the oath of office? What we have to decide between now and November 2008 is if the Democrats truly are co-conspirators in the gutting of constitutional law or merely gutless politicians. Some choice!

[joja]

As usual, Mr. Bromwich, you nailed it again, but you left out one troubling detail -- the endless war which you refer to, is something the military-industrial complex and defense contractors have been engineering ever since the Cheney/Bush regime come to power, and they're not about to stand by and watch their corporate welfare perks come to an end. The lobbyist money is flowing fast and freely into the Dems pockets now, insuring that the orgy at the public trough continues.

The most troubling part of it all is, as you point out in your last paragraph, that no one (well, at least not enuf members) in the opposition party seem to question the sea-change that's occurring in our culture. We've always been a nation adverse to wars and foreign commitments. Now it seems we're addicted to both.

[ljsfolly]

I see the basic failure here to actually think and vote from their beliefs. Instead there is way too much thinking of how it will affect their electability for the next time or what it might do/not do for the republicans. When we elect persons to the congress what are we electing them for? Their party affiliation or for their ability to think and vote for what we hope they believe that is close enough to our beliefs? There is too much seperation by parties now and less votes from the personal belief and thoughts of the individual. Until we stop being dem or repub and be United States Citizens and unite the congress and administration, whomever is in office, will continue the rapid slide into the total destruction of our country.

[LizM]

When will you, and so many others around here, begin to understand that cutting off funding WILL NOT END THIS WAR.

It is time to get behind the only presidential candidate who can and will.

If Joe Biden is not the Democratic nominee, then we will all be in for at least another four years of more of the same and you will get your endless war.

So, SNAP OUT OF IT!

[Purple Girl]

Everytime they give in to this admin, the Dems take on more step towards the Gallows. They have proven their derelection of duty and their willingness to put the citizens of the US and the rest of the world in harms way to secure unfettered power- they are accomplices.
Gald to See Stabenow voted against funding- but as usual not Carl (Gone). And of course Diane once again supported 'fearless leader'

Cave Adsum- Public servants and we are tallying up the charges to be levied against you in conjunction with this Regimes trial for Treason- Dems are complicit and should be held accountable.

[handyallen1]

mr bromwich we know we're screwed but what to do is the question the public is ignored stop the war ha they know better i've for one have quit sending money to this so called democrat party but they roll on tell me whats good for me even if i don't like it they know best sheeeeesh

[mamacat]

For the first half of the 20th century, the U.S. at least gave lip-service to the Wilsonian principle of "national self-deter­mination." Its a pretty self-explanatory kind of phrase, meaning let people run their own country as they see fit, as long as they don't make war on us.
A rabid fear and hatred has permeated much of American political thought in the second half of the 20th century, and into the beginning of the 21st, and has resulted in the abandonment of the principal of "national self determinat­ion." We are too preoccupied fearing other people and cultures to respect them. Today Americans, and especially the Republicans, have thoroughly bought into the concept of what they call "nation building."
The term "nation building" sounds innocuous enough, but like so much in the Republican vocabulary, it has a special meaning aside from what the words sound like they should mean. In the Republican lexicon, the term means that the U.S. now believes that it can attack and "democratise" (exploit) any third world country it deems a threat. Of course, the word "threat" is redefined as well, so in the end, the people at the top of the GOP foodchain can rationalise doing almost anything, to anyone, anywhere in the world, and they do it all in the name of democracy, self-defence, and patriotism.
Welcome to the world of neo-con politics. Be sure to bring your own copy of "Alice in Wonderland," the Jabberwocky wants to have a talk with you.

[RDixon]

The important vote; the one that counts.
The one that hands Bush another "blank check" with no strings.

Yeas: ( Democrats who support Bush's big disaster )

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

Nays:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Absent ( Didn't think it was important enough for them to bother voting )

Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Obama (D-IL)

[vflog]

Dennis Kucinich, working for the American People.

[diamondprynzez]

Stop being so damn dramatic. Yeah, it sucks that the democrats continue to fund the war when it was obvious that they were elected for the sole purpose of stopping it.

But you need to do some research before you mark this as a historical moment. In the last 60 years or so as far as I've researched, Congress has NEVER gone against the president on foreign policy issues, especially contentious ones. There may have been grandstanding, as there is currently, but never has Congress stood up to the president.

Why would this Congress be any different? It would be utterly naive of us to believe that the dems will stop this war. The only way the war will end is if a dem occupies the oval office.