Bitter lessons

The temperature indicator on my iMac Dashboard reads 12 degrees; with the wind chill that must place the "real feel" in the single digits. Following last Wednesday's snowstorm, the streets and sidewalks of Sleepy Hollow today are crusted with salt. They look to me like the facades of well-used chalkboards after they're wiped down with dirty erasers.

I commuted to New York City all last week, a rarity for me these days, so naturally last week we got bitter-cold weather and the first big snowfall of the year. Hoofing the one mile to the Tarrytown train station and back reminded me of years ago when I commuted eight miles each way from my parents' house to Nassau Community College on my 10-speed bike; back then when the weather was bad, just making it to class felt like a major accomplishment.

Speaking of accomplishments, I'm still trying to sort out what exactly the Democratic-controlled Congress was trying to accomplish with its passage of the nonbinding resolution against the change in tactics—grossly mislabeled "the surge"—being implemented by coalition forces on the ground in Iraq.

In a piece that was highlighted on the front page of Saturday's New York Post, Ralph Peters—like myself, a Democrat who supports the war effort—was livid:

Providing aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

Peters added this:

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

And this:

This resolution has teeth…It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

What strikes me as most unsettling about the resolution is the sheer audacity of its timing. Shortly after voting unanimously to approve the transfer of command of coalition forces to Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the US Congress then turns around and willfully undermines the general's counterinsurgency strategy just as it gets off the ground.

Under the command of Lt. Gen. Petraeus, the US soldiers fighting with Iraqi forces to establish security in Baghdad and elsewhere are now living and working in Iraqi neighborhoods. The idea is to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis by increasing the visibility of Iraqi and American forces and by fostering a sense of “we’re all in this together.” As one US soldier said recently, “Now when their lights go out, so do ours.”

Needless to say, moving a sizable chunk of our combat forces out of their secure compounds and into neighborhoods rife with sectarian and insurgent violence places those forces at increased risk. The resolution passed by the Democratic-led House only heightens that risk by signaling to the enemy that a few well-placed IEDs in those neighborhoods will collapse US resolve completely.

In the words of Peters, “Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?”