Anyone who has ever dismissed opposition to the Iraq war as the domain of the radical left-wing of the political spectrum received a sharp wake-up call on Thursday. U.S. Representative John Murtha, D-PA - a highly decorated former Marine colonel and traditionally hawkish Democrat - introduced a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The chaos that ensued in the House of Representatives on Friday revealed the high level of irony inherent to Republican statements welcoming open, depoliticized debate on Iraq war policy.
On the morning following Murtha's earth-shattering statement of support for withdrawal from Iraq, Republican House leadership decided against engaging him and other proponents of withdrawal in an open and complete debate about the benefits of withdrawing versus "staying the course." Instead, they orchestrated a night of political theater, bent on embarrassing a war hero and painting the Democratic congressional caucus into a corner.
On Friday, the final day of legislative business before the Thanksgiving recess, Representative Duncan Hunter, R-CA, introduced a shortened and intentionally vague version of the Murtha Resolution on the floor of the House. Murtha's resolution listed specific reasons for withdrawal and actions to be taken by American military forces, and set a timetable for a "redeployment" to be completed by "the earliest practicable date." Hunter's resolution simply read: "Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
This is clearly not a serious resolution. It is non-binding, and the language makes it so vague as to be purely symbolic. But Republican House leaders pushed to limit debate on the resolution and ensure that a vote would occur that same evening. The significance of the rush to action on the Hunter Resolution cannot be overstated. Before the vote to authorize military action in Iraq, each of the 435 members of the House of Representatives was allocated five minutes to speak. This allowed at least 36 hours and 15 minutes of debate. In stark contrast, the debate on withdrawal was limited to 60 minutes total, allowing each member of Congress an average of only eight seconds to speak. The resolution was also brought to the floor for a vote without going through committee, further restricting intelligent debate on an Iraq policy shift. There was no empirical evidence presented in support of either withdrawal or sustained presence, and no experts testified.
The procedural vote to bring the resolution to immediate action was along party lines, with Republicans almost completely united in their desire to restrict debate and force a vote on their intentionally ridiculous resolution. The vote was forced for the same reason that the resolution was introduced in the first place: Republican leaders in the House were not interested in engaging in a genuine dialogue on Iraq war policy. The resolution provided a venue in which members of their caucus could accuse Representative Murtha of being a "coward." They then forced a vote on the resolution, knowing that Democrats could not and would not support such a vague yet polarizing and potentially significant statement of support for "immediate withdrawal," particularly on such short notice and without full debate. In so doing, Republicans clearly hoped to stifle future dissent on the president's Iraq policy. Since the Hunter Resolution passed with only three Democrats voting no, virtually any House Democrat voicing support for a more nuanced strategy of disengagement will surely be accused of "flip-flopping."
By essentially mocking Representative Murtha's honest call for a strategic withdrawal from Iraq, House Republicans showed a frightening disdain for intellectual diversity. They played a political game with a war in which three American soldiers per day are killed, and by attempting to quiet a dissenting yet experienced and wise voice, they did the American public no favors.
