Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee. And he is not going to cut funding for the troops in Iraq. He explains himself in today’s Washington Post. He chooses a good ally in Abraham Lincoln, who famously opposed the Mexican-American War but voted to supply the troops.
Levin lays out his plan to pass a law forcing the president to redeploy troops out of Iraq. He and Sen. Reed (D-RI) plan on introducing their plan as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill.
Support for our approach has grown steadily. In June 2006, our measure received 39 votes. In March, it received 48 votes. In April, it received 51 votes, including those of two Republican senators. By contrast, only 29 senators so far — none of them Republican — have voted for a funding cutoff. That’s a long way from the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster or the 67 needed to override a veto.
Levin makes a good mathematical point. But 51 is still miles away from 67. It kind of undermines his point about the funding cutoff having no chance. Maybe so, but neither does his approach. The only effective thing possible is to refuse to fund the war if an acceptable bill cannot be passed. Armando made this case during the first round. The reason Armando’s strategy never had a chance is because people on the Armed Services committee, led by Carl Levin, thought that ‘to stop funding for the war…sends the wrong message to the troops’.
I have sympathy for Levin’s position even though I think he is wrong. Levin is responsible for our Armed Forces, and it is irresponsible to put them in a situation where they might go without supplies because the Congress refuses to pass a supplemental funding bill that is to the president’s liking. Unfortunately, we have no other options. Congress is now more unpopular than the president, and it is precisely because they backed down on the war. So, politically this is hurting us, not helping. And it isn’t helping to end the war. That is why I feel Levin needs to make the difficult step of cutting funding if the president will not back down.
One thing should be clear. Ending the war is a good move strategically and politically. The people on the Armed Services committees are loathe to make a bold move, but until they get on board the war will go on.
