Quote:
Quote by: Zeebadee  Fine, then congress can vote to stop the war. But allowing congress to force a particular military strategy by threatening to withold funds is a very bad precedent to set. It's micro-managing by any interpretation of the term. bush is the CIC, he has the power to choose whoever he wants to run the military. If his strategy fails, that's when congress should get involved. |
The troop surge strategy HAS failed. This is nothing new. We threw troops into Baghdad before each of the elections and during the Fallujah campaign. The insurgency simply adjusted its tactics. The current "new" strategy is all about politics and saving face. Bush will not be the one to withdraw the troops no matter how many dead Americans and Iraqis it takes over the next two years. It's Vietnam all over again. Instead of beginning the pull-out in 1968, after the Tet Offensive, we waited for five more bloody years before accepting the inevitable.
Should Congress just sit idly by and watch this president prolong an unnecessary war? It's time that Congress put a halt to EXPANDING the war and then work for a rational and orderly withdrawal of our troops. That won't require a complete cut off of funds, a political non-starter in any case.
Your slippery slope argument has no legs IMO. Congress, historically, has used its oversight powers judiciously and this case is no different.