September Storm

Last fall saw what was widely perceived as a pivotal election. Democrats took control of the House (which was expected, although the margin was larger than anticipated) and the Senate (which was a large surprise ... some pickups were expected, but not six). The unquestioned impetus for this revocation of Republicans was Iraq occupation, and the demands of the electorate that "something" be done about it.

What started off as a Congress filled with hope saw some early successes such as an increase in the minimum wage. However, the elephant in the room wasn't addressed until April, and ultimately the hopes of the majority of voters were denied when Congress passed a no-strings war funding bill to last through the summer. Not surprisingly, rather than being hailed as "bi-partisan", the story was instead how Democrats had backed-down in the face of demands from one of the least popular Presidents in our history.

Still, there remained some small beacon of light - at the end of the summer the spending bill wold lapse, and Congress would review the situation to see if the President's escalation merited further investment, both in lives and money, in what seemed increasingly like a quagmire.

Skip ahead to mid-August. Despite a series of claims of an improving military situation - including, but not limited to, the now (in)famous O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed piece in the NY Times, or the relentlessly warmongering Joe Lieberman (who recently pushed for action against Syria) - it's questionable as to whether the situation is really improving at all. As I have noted before, the military says attacks and civilian casualties are on the decline, but provides no actual numbers to support it. Independently compiled statistics seem to indicate civilian casualties are stable, but attacks have actually increased by 5%, which would directly contradict the claims of improvement.

Perhaps most importantly, US troop losses aren't showing any notable decline, and the loss of 14 more yesterday doesn't help in that regard.

Despite how they like to present their visits on talk shows and in op-eds, when O'Hanlon, Pollack, Lieberman, et. al. visit Iraq, they don't really visit Iraq. What they do is spend time in the Green Zone, maybe head out to a few cities where they visit with military officials, and maybe some carefully vetted Iranian representatives, and are essentially reliant for their "impressions" and "opinions" solely on information from these sources, information which they really can't verify.

Never mind that the opinion of those who actually are out risking their lives every day, those who really can attest to what the daily situation is like on the streets of Iraq, is nearly 180 degrees away from what these hit-and-run visitors present.

The latest to participate in one of these dog-and-pony shows is Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who returned from an extensive two-day survey the situation to announce:

"We visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results. "

...

"We note the continuing improvement in the ability and willingness of the Iraqi Army to conduct combat operations against the insurgents ..."

That would be the same Iraqi army who, along with Iraqi police, are helping insurgents place bombs along roadsides to kill Americans. Yes, that's progress.

Levin goes on to mention that while the military aspects may be improving, he sees little (if any) hope in the political realm. Of course, that caveat fails to get any mention ... all the headlines are along the lines of: "Surge working, Levin says".

It doesn't take the Oracle of Delphi to see where this is headed. Even though the entire point of the surge was to allow the Iraqi government to make some hard political decisions, which it has utterly failed to do, it won't take many Democratic defections to pass another military bill free of constraints such as time lines for withdrawal, despite that being the key underlying reason many of the freshman Democrats were elected in the first place.

These days you see a lot of posts at conservative sites (why, here's one now!) discussing how Congress "is even more unpopular than Bush". Which is true. It's the reasons for that unpopularity which they don't discuss, but which are most interesting.

A CBS poll from earlier this month spells it out nicely (via Greenwald):

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?"
						.
		Approve	Disapprove	Unsure
		%	%	%
	ALL adults	25	63	12
	Republicans	24	66	10
	Democrats	28	59	13
	Independents	23	66	11

The approval ratings among Republicans is actually somewhat high when compared to the percentage of Democrats who approved the last Republican Congress. Independents are lower, but not by a huge margin. What really stands out is the low percentage of Democrats who approve of the job Congress is doing. If that number were up in, say, the mid-60's, which is pretty typical for members of the party which controls Congress, the overall approval rating would be pretty standard.

Those disaffected Democrats (and one suspects a large number of the disaffected Independents) aren't upset because Congress "isn't supporting the troops", or is "micromanaging the war" or any other Limbaugh-led talking point. They're pissed off (and increasingly more so) because this Congress was elected large to create opposition to the administrations policies - to actually do something about warrentless wiretapping, about habeas corpus, about, most importantly, getting our young men and women out of Iraq.

All of which this Congress has steadfastly refused to do.

If Levin et. al. manage to talk themselves into caving to the President again next month, allowing yet another unfettered prolonging of the war ... well, if you want to see Congress play limbo with its approval ratings, there may never be a better opportunity