Russ Feingold is Not Holding Back

Here's what I like about Senator Russ Feingold. He's able to look at the big picture instead of making purely political statements individually. In addition to teaming with John Kerry to deliver a resolution demanding more resources go to Afghanistan (you'll probably never hear about that outside of the blogs), Feingold today laid into his fellow Democrats for inadequately fighting to put an end to the war in Iraq. This dual move is not one that can be reductively called pacifist, but instead it looks at the totality of our responsibilities around the world and comes to conclusions on each of them based on the merits. Feingold was unsparing about the war in Iraq:

Russ told us the Inside-the-Beltway consultants (the old Clinton crowd) supported this war and know now they made a mistake of great historical proportions. They "don't want to come out of this with egg on their faces" and "they are setting the parameters of the debate"-- and Democratic senators are still listening to them.

Yep, the man best qualified to be president of the United States, but who decided not to join the crowded field-- which even includes a pygmy like Joe Biden-- basically reinforced what I was afraid of: "The people of this country want this war over." And referring to the Inside-the-Beltway power-brokers, he said "It is us against them... There is consensus to end this war everywhere but in Washington. And people don't want us to slow-walk this."

What Russ said is needed now is a clear direction from Democrats so public pressure will build and effect change. "This is not a time to finesse the situation." And finessing the situation is exactly what he feels the Warner-Levin bipartisan, nonbinding symbolic resolution is. "It's loaded with language that blocks-- or at least makes more difficult-- the logical next steps" as well as endorses escalation in al-Anbar Province. To Senator Feingold the Warner-Levin resolution "looks more like a reauthorization or more like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" than something he could support. "Let's support binding legislation to end the war.

(Bob Geiger has more from this conference call)

On Afghanistan, Feingold clearly sees the need to stop the Taliban from reclaiming the country five years after the initial invasion. It can be argued that our neglect of Afghanistan in favor of Iraq has led to the tenuous situation in both countries.

“While the Administration moves forward with its escalation plans for Iraq, it has failed to address deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan.” Feingold said. “We should not be reducing our forces in Afghanistan. Instead, we should be strengthening our efforts to defeat a resurgent Taliban – the same movement that harbored and supported the terrorist elements that attacked our country on 9/11.”

Citing a number of statistics showing the steep decline of conditions in Afghanistan in just the last 18 months -- Taliban attacks on United States and allied forces increased from 1,558 in 2005 to 4,542 in 2006 and roadside bomb attacks more than doubled from 2005 to 2006 -- the resolution would make the following demands of Bush:

Strengthen U.S. commitment to establishing long-term stability and peace in Afghanistan.

Maintain or increase the total number of troops serving in Afghanistan and not sacrifice that effort to bolster America's failed presence in Iraq.

Partner with the International Security Assistance Force and the government of Afghanistan and increase efforts to eradicate the Taliban, terrorist organizations, and criminal networks currently operating in Afghanistan.

Increase economic assistance to Afghanistan for reconstruction, social and economic development, counter narcotics efforts and democracy promotion.

Encourage members of the international community to deliver on their financial pledges to support development and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan [...]

“When Afghanistan becomes a second priority or, as a senior military officer recently put it, an 'economy of force' operation, it offers a sobering example of this Administration’s misguided approach to the global fight against terrorist networks,” Feingold said. “Because of the Administration’s Iraq-centric foreign policies, we have neglected situations around the world with a direct impact on our national security, in Afghanistan, Somalia and other countries.”

Feingold's the only guy who talks about Somalia in the entire Senate, I should add.

I'm almost mad at this guy for denying me the opportunity to vote for him for President. He's the only politician on the national stage who understands the nature of the threats that we face, without overhyping them, and who will hold the President to account for ignoring those threats. And he's perfectly willing to criticize his own party when they go weak at the knees. Ultimately, I think today's events worked out well for the Democrats on a rhetorical level, but they need to actually enliven the debate by discussing a real resolution that has some specifics to it. Feingold is an important point man to bring this debate away from the Beltway consensus and toward the consensus agreement of the American people.