PLAYING WITH FIRE. The House of Representatives has passed what many news sources characterize as a rebuke of President Bush's dispatch of reinforcements to Iraq.

The resolution, though non-binding, is the strongest congressional rebuke of Bush since the war began nearly four years ago.

The resolution has provoked strong reaction from troops in Iraq. Friday night's Hannity and Colmes included a report from Iraq in which Geraldo Rivera elicited a critical reaction from the unit he was visiting. That's unusual. The Constitutional principle of civilian control of the military is strong enough that the usual reaction from the field is a "no comment" or an "outside my pay grade." The title I chose for my post is deliberate. Neither the military nor the Democratic majority in Congress will be well-served if "stab in the back" arguments gain traction among disgruntled troops or among critics of Congress. Although that argument has not yet surfaced, there are disgruntled rumblings among weblogs with military connections.

First, an observation from Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette.

Democrats in congress and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq, while not officially allied in this cause, do share a certain sense of urgency, recognizing that their best opportunity to stop this plan is now - before the remaining three brigades deploy and full implementation has occurred. But thus far al Qaeda appears to be laying low, and while the Democrats have passed a "non-binding resolution" opposing General Petraeus' plan, their talk of cutting off funding remains just that - perhaps until the weekend poll results are in from Americans who know little of the conflict beyond what they see in headlines and soundbites.

Interspersed with his roundup of recent achievements in theater is this assessment of the correlation of forces.

The greatest threat may be from the U.S. Congress, as al Qaeda can at least be confronted.

At Blackfive, Uncle Jimbo's evaluation of Iranian provocations includes both a realistic assessment of the situation and additional discontent with Congress.

We are not going to invade Iran, although not for the reason often given that their Army is too large and advanced for us to defeat. That is silly; actually a straight up fight against a traditional opponent would show just how bad our military really is. We could destroy the Iranian military like child's play; it's that occupation thing that makes invasion a very bad idea. But what about the training camps near the Iraqi border, what about the factories where the IEDs are manufactured, or what about a military facility chosen just as an example? A reminder that actions have consequences seems to be in order, as the Mullahs seem to be acting with impunity in ways we should not tolerate.

I think a few unexplained, uncredited explosions inside Iran would go a long way toward reminding that regime that the press and Nancy Pelosi do not command the US military or protect US national security, that would be W's job. They can snipe from the sidelines, but they have shown they don't want the accountability that comes with taking concrete steps to stop the President from doing his job. If we do nothing to stop Iran from actively warring on us in Iraq, we can hardly expect to prevail. Initial reports from Iraq suggest that this whole surge thing might just not be so crazy after all. Mookie and many of his leaders have hightailed it to Iran and we should make sure he stays there, his thugs are now leaderless and about to spend some quality time with US combat forces, we are capturing and killing goodly numbers of those foolish enough to engage us and the populace in areas we clear welcomes the fact that our troops are hanging around to keep things safe.

Austin Bay's assessment of the Senate non-vote on the non-binding resolution includes a similarly harsh evaluation of the House.

Remember, we are in the wonderland of “non-binding” resolutions. Why? I suspect the defeat caucus is hedging its bets. GEN David Petraeus has a six-month window to help the Iraqi government stabilize itself. The so-called surge is proving to be a welcome change in ROE (see this from last month). GEN David Petraeus (I am given to understand) is a Democrat. He could prove to be the biggest political winner.

The reference to "defeat caucus" is a deliberate parallel construction. Here's Cassandra at Villainous Company introducing the parallel.

The recent uptick in violence in Baghdad is directly related to the dissent and division here at home. Our enemies depend on the fact that we remain unable to pull together as a nation, and some among us seem determined to give them every assurance that we are on their side. Please join The Victory Caucus.

That parallel is an insurgency in progress in the United States, complete with artwork.


And in the civilian commentary, Jules Crittenden comments,

While Congress Was Voting …

… for defeat and surrender, other people were taking care of business in Iraq. Mudville rounds up the door-kicking, head-breaking, name-taking fun here.

There are some cooler heads at work. Armed Liberal at Winds of Change wants to have a civil conversation.

Well, given that it's an insurgency, and that public stances matter because in part it's a matter of convincing a population at risk that we're serious about protecting them, so yes there is some cost to be borne in the perception of our seriousness because powerful interests are tugging at our sleeve and trying to pull us back from the table. So no, I reject the notion that calling for withdrawal or redeployment or whatever is treasonous or a betrayal - but I also reject the notion that it has no consequences in the conduct of the war.

Democratic Senators Biden of Delaware and Levin of Michigan appeared on some of the morning's talk shows, with what might be a way forward. Their suggestion recognizes that the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act have been achieved, and the remaining mission for the U.S. military is one of dealing with al-Qaeda elements in Iraq, and only of dealing with al-Qaeda elements, rather than continuing to police a sectarian war. Whether that is possible remains to be seen.