Why I Signed the Pledge

A reader writes:

I want to explain to you why I signed the pledge proposed by Hewitt. I hope our previous correspondence has established that I am not a 'fanatic' and have been critical of Bush's handling of the war (although I still agree with the initial decision to go to war).  Moreover, I also have doubts about the surge but am willing to give it a chance. 

My problem with the non-binding resolution is that its sole purpose is political cover for the senators, many of whom supported the initial decision to go to war. If these senators really have significant doubts about 'plus up' they should exercise their constitutional authority and refuse funding for the extra troops.  However, all senators (Democrat and Republican) are smart enough to realize that the public reaction to cutting off funds for extra troops would be extremely negative. So, they are trying to have it both ways: if 'plus up' does reduce violence in some measurable manner, the senators can say "it was our oversight that led to success and our resolution was merely non-binding" yet if the surge is not successful, they can say "I told you so."

Combined with the purely political motivations for the resolution is the fact that it may have very real and significant negative consequences for our troops.  Not only will it discourage the troops already there and the new ones heading over, it also sends a message of weakness to our enemies as General Petraeus said in his confirmation hearing. Anyone who thinks Islamic terrorists do not pay attention to acts of Congress are underestimating our enemies.

In short, the purely political nature of the resolution combined with the likelihood of the negative consequences it may cause is why I signed the pledge.

An alternative reading is that the senators strongly disagree with the president but feel a need to defer to the judgment of the commander-in-chief when troops are in combat. My own view is that the non-binding resolution is, in fact, a sign of respect for the presidential office, as well as a statement of no confidence in its current holder. Which strikes me as a fair position to take.