Senate rejects troop withdrawal
Last Thursday, the United States Senate rejected two proposals for timetables for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.?The discussions and debates were long, lively, sometimes contentious, but mostly civil.
The most radical proposal, predictably, was from Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. He urged his colleagues to vote for ?redeployment? of all U.S. troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, except for those needed to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.
Mr. Kerry?s argument was full of sound and fury, but largely lacking in logic, in my view.?Coming on the heels of new gains on the ground in Iraq, both militarily and politically, and renewed hope in the air for Iraq, the timing of his message was less than exquisite.?
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, on both sides of the aisle.?Mr. Kerry?s proposed amendment to the FY 2007 Defense Authorization Bill was roundly rejected, 86-13.
Thirty-one Democrats joined the 55 Republicans who consigned Mr. Kerry?s proposal to its well-deserved defeat.?To his credit, Mr. Kerry took it like a man.
The other proposal, offered by Sen. Carl Levin and others, called for the beginning of U.S. troop ?redeployment? from Iraq by the end of this year.?Unlike Mr. Kerry?s proposal, this alternative plan contained no set end date for the phased withdrawal.? Thus, it was less radical and more palatable to more Democrats than the Kerry proposal.? However, it too, was ultimately rejected by the Senate, 60-39.
As a confirmed C-Span junkie, I hereby confess I actually watched most of the discussions and debates on both the Kerry and Levin proposals.?I enjoyed the give and take of the dialogue between those who supported either or both of the proposals, and those who opposed either or both.
Those who question the need for such discussion and debate by the Senate on matters of such great importance to our national security either ignore or dismiss the vital role of ?advice and consent? assigned to the Senate by the framers of our Constitution. When Senators from different parties, with different views on our presence in Iraq, candidly discuss and debate their views in an open, televised forum, it shows our strength, not our weakness. If those who wish us ill misinterpret our strength as a weakness, so be it.
As of this writing, the Senate has just begun to debate the massive FY 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. The bill authorizes programs and activities with a total price tag to the taxpayer of some $518 billion, including some $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.?This bill, too, deserves open, candid discussion and debate.?Unfortunately, it is likely to get little of either, since most of the details of the bill have already been worked out in the relevant committees and subcommittees of the Senate.
The devil in these details is sure to include a healthy helping of pork for the ?folks back home.? More on that in a later column.
Thomas B. Vaughn is a professor at Motlow College and co-host of the radio show ?Viewpoints,? which airs on WCPI 91.3 FM.