L.A. TIMES: "Do We Really Need A GEN Pelosi?"

Via email:

Today's Los Angeles Times editorial on the Democrats' latest "slow bleed" approach for abandoning the global war on terror asks the same rhetorical question Republicans have been asking for weeks: Shouldn't our military commanders on the ground manage the war?

The background:

"After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly mess: bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he should."

Pursing political ends undermines our troops' ability to achieve victory:

"By interfering with the discretion of the commander in chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects remain of a successful outcome. It's absurd for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) to try to micromanage the conflict, and the evolution of Iraqi society, with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks."

Putting "micromanagement" in perspective:

"Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy."

On having the courage to propose a plan that simply cuts funding:

"If a majority in Congress truly believes that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement."