Democrats on Iraq: Substantive Plans or Political "Timidity"

Via email:

Nearly everyone acknowledges that the congressional "resolutions of disapproval" - non-binding criticisms of the President and his new strategy for success in Iraq - are nothing more than political statements. Now more and more Democrats are acknowledging it themselves. Roger Simon described the state of play in a Politico column earlier this week:

"Senate Democrats oppose the war in Iraq , they just don't plan on stopping it.

"They have discovered that standing up to the president is not quite as easy as vilifying him."

It goes on to describe Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) challenging the "timidity" of his own party: "If you are really against this war, [Feingold] is going to tell them, now is the time to show it." The Wisconsin Democrat plans to introduce legislation cutting off funding for the Iraq war.

Presidential candidate John Edwards also dismisses non-binding resolutions opposing the President's strategy as "useless," telling Politico it is "Exactly like a child standing in the corner and stomping his feet."

House Democratic leaders have promised to consider a similar "useless" resolution of disapproval in the coming weeks. What is the point of these resolutions of disapproval exactly? Consider this exchange from the New York Times last week which describes Democrats' futile attempt to claim their motivation for pushing resolutions of disapproval is to encourage the Iraqi government to step up and take on more responsibility:

"When Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has long favored sending more troops to Iraq, asked if approval of a Senate resolution assailing Mr. Bush's new strategy could hurt the morale of American troops, the general replied, 'It would not be a beneficial effect, sir.'

"Asked by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, who also backs the plan, if a resolution would also 'give the enemy some encouragement' by suggesting that the American people are divided, General Petraeus replied, 'That's correct, sir.'

"That answer sparked admonishments by critics of Mr. Bush's strategy, who insisted that the point of the Senate resolutions is to put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq to follow through on its political program and take more responsibility for its own security.

"'We know this policy is going forward,' said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York. 'We know the troops are moving. We know that we're not likely to stop this escalation. But we are going to do everything we can to send a message to our government and the Iraqi government that they had better change, because the enemy we are confronting is adaptable.'"

Victory in Iraq is critical to America 's strategic interests. House Republicans have outlined a proposal which is explicitly designed to support our troops and help the President's new strategy succeed in Iraq . What is missing in this debate is a plan for success in Iraq from the Democrats.

What exactly is the Democrats' plan for success in Iraq?