Since Congress seems to be putting on a theater production with its debate of the latest measure on the war and withholding of an important defense bill, I thought I would add some of my lines to the Chorus.

A comment by a visitor to this blog, Truth Hunter, characterized Congress’ performance succinctly: It is “shameful”. Both attitudes towards the war could and should agree on this.

For those that see no virtue in a military solution or demand a change of strategy backed by legislative will, it is shameful because it abandons effective, bi-partisan options to enact this in favor of a bullying, hubristic tone. The measure put forth by Lamar Alexander, a prominent Republican, would have written the “change in strategy” that polls show most of the American public desires into enforceable law. It would not have had set timetables for withdrawal, but it would have effectively taken the strategic conduct of the war out of the President’s hands and shown a bipartisan consensus to scale down troop commitment. Instead, the Democrats have in essence declared that unless the Legislature’s control of the war is done their way, by their word, it will only continue to be a source of fear and discontent for the public. This sounds rather familiar. But unlike President Bush, who many Americans invested great hope and solidarity in as Commander-in-Chief, reasons to trust the vacillating and compromising Democrats have yet to be presented. It is not their ordained role to direct military affairs, unlike the Executive Branch, but they act as though it is.

Their “my way or the highway to hell” attitude is petty, more interested in demanding submission from the opposition than achieving cooperation. It implicitly demands that the opposition and its present and former supporters in the public concede that the Democrats are right and the President wrong. This statement is not only irrelevant considering the urgency of the mortal struggle in Iraq, it is also empty. In the latter case, even staunch supporters of Bush have acknowledged he made serious mistakes in the planning and execution of the war. No one needs to be told his management of the war was poor - we’ve heard it enough times; it’s been proven. We now care to know how the management was poor and what to do about it. And this concern is unaddressed by the former assumption of the Democrats’ implicit demand - that they are right. For, in authorizing the war, in offering no resolve to achieve alternatives, and in presenting no allowances for the real, dire, human cost of what happens after a withdrawal, they have most certainly not been “right”.

And for supporters of a sturdy military presence in Iraq to secure the ailing government as best as it can be, Congress’ actions are shameful because they refuse to respond to the specific facts on the ground. They do not speak to how to manage the “political solution”. They do not give any credit to the narrowing of focus in our security operations that has occurred due to Petraeus, aiming at encircling and destroying the other major foreign influences in Iraq - al-Qaeda and Iran - rather than going after Nationalists. Most significantly in terms of the message the Democrats send, they are not waiting for Petraeus’ assessment on the Surge strategy, nor waiting to see how it plays out for its closing two months. In the bloody and confusing business of war, resolve is important - looking beyond the numbers - but it requires a political vision and will. Can anyone concerned with what a draw-down in troop strength will do to security in Iraq take comfort in what the Democrats have projected will be the result? Have they ever done an actual analysis of the result, and presented it? I don’t think even their supporters can answer that most crucial question about our reduction in fight against the insurgents: “What then?”

In “Hamlet”, an upstart monarch debates over which of his “bad dreams” - assumptions and fears - to act on when deciding whether to commit regicide. All the while, the bodies hit the floor and the madness mounts. In the end, only an orgy of violence and self-destruction settles the matter, leaving a country without a king, only a slaughter.

America’s course in Iraq is not a forum for the Democratic leadership to present itself as a dark hero in the maelstrom. It is a real slaughter, and daily, and it is real consensus, not uncompromising domination, that is required to end it.

Our best hope now seems to be that the Chorus - the classic theatrical role of the people’s voice - will roar loud enough to drown out their arrogant ramblings and force a united will to resolve this conflict.