Voting to End the War: The Iraq Supplemental is a First Step
David Sirota is co-chairperson of the Progressive States Network, and Senior Editor at In These Times magazine. This piece, excerpted here, first appeared on the SirotaBlog at www.workingforchange.com
Full Article:
The Progressive Democratic Members of Congress who had been considering trying to kill the Supplemental bill that includes binding language to end the war made a deal with Speaker Pelosi to provide the necessary votes to pass the legislation. This is a principled and shrewd move for which these lawmakers should be applauded.
It is a courageous move because it is never, ever easy to swallow a compromise, even if it is clearly the right thing to do to achieve long-term goals. These members of Congress played hardball from the beginning, and that hardball made sure this bill included strong, binding legislation to end the war. Without that hardball, that legislation wouldn't be in this supplemental at all. In fact, such binding language probably wouldn't even have been voted on at all in any form, much less passed by the full House today. Because of their efforts, progressive Democrats have not only brought the war closer to an end, but they have become one of the most powerful blocs in the US Congress.
These progressive lawmakers are true heroes because they are displaying a seriousness about ending the war, rather than merely a seriousness about protesting the war. Protest and pressure are critical in the lead up to legislative action -- but when it comes time for that action, we hire lawmakers to do just that: make laws. That process does not tend to create perfect outcomes, and the supplemental is by no means perfect. But this bill, with its binding language to end the war, disproportionately tilts toward the antiwar side when looked at in the context of a Congress whose majority is unfortunately not antiwar. That's a key point here: The majority of Americans oppose this war, and Democrats hold a majority in Congress, but the majority of Congress is not (yet) antiwar. That's unfortunate and I don't like it, but it's a fact. Passing a bill this strong and binding, then, is a major step forward.
Some readers keep saying that Bush will ignore whatever binding law Congress passes, and thus this Iraq bill is unacceptable. I agree that it's very likely Bush will try to ignore the law as he has so many other laws -- but we can't ask legislators to legislate under that premise. The whole legislative process is about making laws, meaning a legislator has to assume the law that is passed will be followed. Legislating under the whole "he won't follow the law" premise is really a giant catch-22. If he won't follow the law, why legislate anything? This is true even for spending bills -- take a good look at military appropriations bills and you'll find that the President of the United States has incredible latitude to ignore Congress and spend money. If this bill passes (and is not vetoed), a law will be on the books that we will be able to try to enforce through the courts and through other means.
The progressive lawmakers and everyone who supports their decision (yours truly included) to support the Supplemental should not accept the concept that some will inevitably trot out claiming that voting against the bill and killing it out of supposed "purity" is a more "ethical" or "principled" stand than voting for the bill and solidifying binding legislation to end the war. It's a different tactical outlook, but in no way any less committed to ending the war than those who advocated for the bill's defeat.
In the last few weeks, many of the leaders of the antiwar movements -- the people doing the hard, unglamorous organizing work, not the people just blowing off contrarian steam -- have been attacked by some on the left as supposedly "selling out" for supporting this supplemental. The truth is, those antiwar leaders trying to cobble together a legislative coalition could easily make the charge that the contrarians are selling out -- selling out a viable way to end the war in order to grandstand for the cameras. But these antiwar leaders aren't making that argument because at least one side of this debate on the left understands that this is a tactical debate over how to end the war, not a substantive debate over whether to end the war.
Senior antiwar progressives like Dave Obey (D-WI) who crafted this legislation and other progressives who played hardball and who made the deal last night to help pass this bill should hold their heads high -- they will likely go down in history as making the critical difference in taking the first real step to end the war.
As a former staffer for the founder of the Progressive Caucus, Bernie Sanders, I can say this is a major step forward for progressive power in Congress. These lawmakers displayed toughness and principles, but also the shrewdness necessary to get things done. And that kind of political sophistication bodes well for all the other fights coming up in Congress.
