It is time to clearly enunciate the argument for Congress to cut off funding for combat operations in Iraq.

We are involved in a momentous battle for the truth, with the war hawks able to manipulate the language and distort the logic that it should convey. They would have us believe that cutting funding for the war is cutting funding for our soldiers who are presently fighting that war. On the surface, it is a very seductive and compelling argument that has put fear in the hearts of Democrats who campaigned on ending the war. The distortion must not be allowed to stand.

We must understand the distinction between “the war” and “combat operations.” They are not the same. By lumping “combat operations” under “the war” the Republican hawks intend to manipulate the opposition into a corner that they fear they cannot escape. There is a world of difference between the two. Combat operations and war are not synonymous. Just as offensive operations are part of war, so are defensive maneuvers and tactical retreats. It takes as much planning and resources to conduct a tactical retreat as it does to wage an offensive attack. If the situation is futile, a seasoned military commander orders a tactical retreat. Not a surrender, but a conservation of resources to win another way. That other way in Iraq is political not militarily.

It is the same type of distortion that we heard over and over again in Republican speeches on the Iraq Resolution. They, including our congressman, continued to tie the war in Iraq with the “war on terror.” There is and never has been any connection between the two. In fact, it is not a “war on terror” but more properly a war on terrorists. It’s as if they believe that if the mantra is repeated enough times that it will become the truth. It is that very perception they wish to come true – and they know full well that in the political arena perception is indeed reality. Up until November 2006 they were very successful with that distortion and now they plan yet another.

The truth is that cutting off funds for combat operations in Iraq is NOT the same as cutting funding and hence support for our troops. What is does say is that the congress will no longer fund offensive combat operation in Iraq. Short of not paying the troops or illegally transferring other funds for combat operations, the President will have to orderly withdraw our forces from Iraq. Anything less than that is the making of a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen and would lead to immediate impeachment. George Bush will not risk that. His historical legacy is dubious enough without that.

The last thing that anyone wants is the unmitigated rout of American forces that we witnessed in 1975 with helicopters desperately evacuating forces from the roof of the American Embassy as the Viet Cong stormed the embassy gates. If we are perfectly honest with ourselves, we look back on that episode in American foreign policy and can not help but call it for what it was: an outright military defeat for America. Some American military personnel still to this day try and make a distinction between a military defeat and a political defeat, citing the body counts and massive destruction of the enemy’s resources. Yes, we carpeted Vietnam with bombs, killed hundreds of thousands (with some estimates as high as 4,000,000) Vietnamese, defoliated large strips of land with dioxin poisons that are still contaminating the environment and for 20 years reduced their economy to rubble. In the end however, their army threw us out. That is a military defeat.

Apologists for the war will cite our defeat as a lack of will. Even though the vast majority of Americans were against the war, there was no lack of will by the leaders of the day. Unlimited resources were given to our military. We had every type of bomb, airplane, helicopter, naval ship and an unending supply of draftees. We suffered a defeat because it was a conflict that we could not win. What happened to us in Vietnam was the same as what happened to the British during the American Revolution. It was an asymmetric guerilla war fought against a foreign occupier – at the time the world’s most powerful nation – by a determined indigenous population.

Congress and the quivering Democrats that shudder at the distorted logic foisted upon us by a determined faction for whom power is an end in itself, need to “screw their courage to the sticking place” and not fail to end this disastrous conflict. Congress needs to fund our troops to the hilt for an orderly, dignified and timely withdrawal from Iraq. That may even mean temporarily more funding for defensive armaments and personnel to cover our exit.

Cutting off funding for combat operations is NOT the same as cutting off funding for our troops. Our troops want to come home. Not because they are cowards and don’t have the stomach for a fight, but because they see the futility of the operation. Like Vietnam, the Iraq war is built on a lie and is militarily un-winnable.

What will happen in Iraq after we leave will not be pretty, but it will be no worse than what it is now. The Shi’a are armed to the hilt and, like the Israelis, vow “never again.” They will not allow themselves to be ruled and literally decimated by a minority that has wielded despotic power for nearly half a century. In non-Kurdish central and southern Iraq, the Shi’a are the majority and have no intent of relinquishing the power that comes with that status. Eventually Sunni and Shi’a will have a reconciliation, but not under American occupation.

Our congressman needs to stop the charade of his support for all the President’s men. He needs to come out, courageously representing the majority of those in his district and admit the mistake and speak up against funding combat operations. The shuddering Democrats also need to do the same.