The Democrats have had their say.

In what really was a safe vote for them. Knowing that the President is going to veto the bill allows you to vote yes for it but insulates you from any immediate consequences, especially since this is the first year of a new Congress, and things change over time.

This was political posturing. Of course, if they think it didn't just make most deployed military people anxious, well, they truly don't understand the troops. The troops are always pawns - but now they've truly been advanced deep into the other side of the board, while wondering what the support is behind them. Some are going to get cautious, even as the vote emboldens and gives aid and comfort to the enemy. This is an Army of long service professionals, but, it can't help but impact on morale.

Indeed, for some, it will improve. Everybody wants to come home. And some want to come home regardless of what happens to the mission. But most, most I suspect are annoyed, some are angry, and just about all are tired of politics and politicians. But, for most, that's just an adjustment, not a change.

The real test for Congress comes after the veto. Then we'll see their mettle, one way or another. And the people will judge in the next election. And they may well validate this action - or they will repudiate it.

Regardless, we have to find a way to fight this war. Iraq is a campaign, though we allowed it to be cast as a war, somehow different from the rest of it. The war will go on, and the democracies must find a way to fight this kind of war, where the enemy is as happy killing his own, knowing that somehow that saps our will, as he his killing us. And he'd rather kill our civilians, simply because it's easier to kill them, than it is to kill our soldiers. And since for our enemy, this *is* an existentialist war - he's going to keep coming.

A thought, for Representative Boyda, who voted *for* the supplemental - how long did it take to deal with Malaysia? How long is it taking to deal with Northern Ireland? How long has there been a fight in the Philippines? Is it the intent of Congress to just pull out and obtain "Peace with Honor?" (which was anything but) or an intent to forge a new approach? Because I haven't seen any sign of new approach, just withdrawal without putting something more substantive in it's place. Mind you, this doesn't excuse or wave away the mistakes made in the campaign to date - but it does ask - what is the substantive plan to replace the one crafted by General Petraeus? Because you just cut his timeline short, were the President to sign the bill. (A real small part of me wants him to have a temper tantrum and say "Fine, I'll bring 'em all home right now." Fortunately, *I'm* not the President, and herein demonstrate one more time my essential unfitness for the job).

This takes time. And we need a President who can make his Departments step up to the plate and do their jobs, and cooperate. We need a Congress that tends to business at home, vice being a Shadow Presidency in the foreign policy arena (Congress has it's role, certainly, still - there is that whole separation of powers thing). But it's going to be a tough row to hoe if our natural allies in this fight choose to hide behind our skirts *and* snipe at us, or just bury their heads in the sand, hoping it will all go away. The problem is deeper than just the President, Congress, Republican, Democrat. It really is civilizational.

Because while you can argue whether Congress demanded a de facto surrender, we know who *hasn't* surrendered. The enemy. It takes two to tango - it only takes one to have a war.

I'll close this post with a new Motivator.

Only in the fullness of time will we know whether at this moment, we stand on the shoulders of giants...

or pygmies.