Bush's slap-in-the-face to the American people (1), to the (overly) loyal generals (2), the Maliki government (3), the Iraqi people (4), all our Allies (5), and to US troops (6) has triggered a strong reaction, and what appears to be a desire to stop their abuse of power and trust by using the power of the purse to cut off funding for the Iraq War by a specific date.
First, the facts: Congress could vote to prohibit further appropriations for military operations in Iraq as of a specific date. That would NOT put the troops at any greater danger than they are now, because they would be fully funded (pay, food, gear, ammunition, benefits) until then. The military would have to organize their missions so as to get them out without compromising their safety. Somehow, the idea seems to be swirling in the surrounding ether that the troops would remain, but would be short of food, gear, ammunition, or other necessities. As Mozart muttered in Amadeus when the Emperor was trying to convince him his music had "too many notes": "this is absurd". It would only happen that way if the Administration made it happen that way. Why not say it?
But, Bush opponents will not do this without knowing that they can also win the spin when the Rove-right wing attack machine strikes. Here's how:
The spin: Neocon spin is that opponents are not willing to give our troops what they need to win, make them more vulnerable, expose them to greater risks, etc. So long as the true implications of cutting off the funds remain unuttered or unchallenged, many natural allies that oppose what Bush/Cheney are unleashing will not take that necessary extra step.
Democrats (and Republican opponents) ought to take the principal from Democrats Still Need to Learn How to Fight (which they still clearly do), and shove it right back down the Neocon/Apologist throats by posing these questions aloud and often: "Does the Administration mean that it would keep troops there after the funding is stopped, exposing our soldiers to greater risks?" Let's see the reporters hound Snow for an answer to that one; if he says they would not, case closed. Spin won.
Of course,Snow will duck by saying that that has not happened and there is no reason to speculate. NO REASON TO SPECULATE!! Snow's silence should then be interpreted, aloud, by war opponents to mean, "this Administration would actually consider exposing our troops to greater risks", "that yes, this is consistent with their sending the troops---when even they knew there was no imminent treat, as the UN inspectors were crushing Saddam's missiles daily because of a technical violation of the UN Resolutions---before sufficient body and vehicle armor were available to protect them".
And, continue pushing this knife in, and twisting slowly. For example, have hearings before Armed Services asking the question of Administration officials. Ask them, as part of the funding mechanism, to prepare withdrawal plans so the Congress can see how they would work to make it safe to cut funds by a certain date.
This accomplishes two main goals: 1) as in ping-pong, it puts the ball on the Administration's side of the court to come up with a satisfactory answer as to how to keep troops in the theater when funding is denied, and 2) forces the question of whether they would keep our troops there under compromised conditions on the Administration.
There is another consideration: whether the war opponents, who were right from the start, will wind up with the blame for the post-war condition in the Middle East.With 2/3 of the American people against escalation, it would be a difficult case to make.It would be different if the war were going well, or if it had shown success; but, this has been a disaster since soon after the toppling of the Saddam statue, and neither history nor spin will change the verdict: it is first, and foremost, a failure of neocon ideology.
Finally, this war has a moral aspect. It is better, of course, to know and parry the spin about to attack you, but the reason to vote to cut off funds by a date certain, and thus force the accommodation (or not) to occur, is that, like Vietnam, the length and size of US military involvement will affect the ultimate outcome only in the numbers of lives and limbs lost.
(1) Depending on the poll, between 61-68% oppose the escalation, and the GOP lost the midterms driven largely by Iraq.
(2) The parade of retired generals revealing their true thoughts is unprecedented in American history. Generals Casey and Abizaid testified >2 months ago that adding troops, at this point, would be a mistake. Initially, it would have helped.
(3) The Maliki government opposed it. Then accepted it. Now, is balking at implementing it. If you were Nouri al-Maliki, to whom would you entrust your life: the US that cannot seem to find a coherent strategy and who will, in any event, be gone if the situation cools or not; or, Moqtada al-Sadr, whose backing al-Maliki currently depends upon, has an army of 60,000, and will be present (unless killed, in which case someone else will inherit his mantle) long after the US leaves?
(4) How long has it been since >50% of Iraqis said it was OK to kill a US soldier. Consistently, >70% want us to leave.
(5) Our staunchest ally, the UK, is withdrawing 7000 troops as we are adding 21,500 of ours. True, "their" region is relatively calm, but could Blair not sent them to Baghdad instead of London?
(6) A plurality of US troops opposes the escalation, according to "Stars and Stripes" magazine.