Senators send a mixed message

How can it be that the U.S. Senate unanimously confirms Gen. David Petraeus and Admiral William J. Fallon as the new commanders to lead the American military in the Middle East, and then considers resolutions to express no support for the mission Petraeus and Fallon are about to pursue?

It's like a friendly back slap, followed by a kick out the door. Resolution-supporting senators are basically saying that they are all behind Petraeus and Fallon, but they are doomed to fail.

Most of the resolutions expressed opposition and suggested varying degrees of change to President George W. Bush's plans to "surge" 21,500 troops to secure the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

"Resolutions are flying like snowflakes around here," marveled Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., earlier this week.

Well, that's what happens when senators think they have control over the strategies for prosecuting a war.

And that is precisely why the Constitution establishes the president as commander in chief - the founders had the common sense to recognize that wars can't be directed by a vast committee of election-minded politicians.

Yet Specter had the audacity to say that the president is "not the sole decider … The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

Oh, really?

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States…"

There's nothing vague about that. Rather than trying to assert fictitious senatorial command authority, the concerned senators should concentrate on the purse string powers they do possess.

If they've really just had it with the war, and they don't support the president's plans, then they should have the courage to back their convictions, and by all means, pursue an effort to cut off funding for the war rather than wasting their time and the country's credibility with "non-binding" resolutions.

There is an exception in the flurry of resolutions: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, have teamed up on a resolution to express backing for the mission in Iraq and conditional goals that should be met as that mission proceeds. But even that amounts to meddling, furthering the illusion that the Senate has a role in steering military strategy.

The resolutions are worthless in practical terms, and they are harmful in a broader strategic sense. They signal a lack of will to enemies as well as allies.

If any of the opposition resolutions pass, Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly said it would only serve to "embolden the enemy." Which is absolutely true, with an additional side effect: It would demoralize American forces.

But thank goodness, in this case, for the dysfunctional nature of the U.S. Senate. There are so many competing resolutions that some observers were speculating this week that none of them will garner enough votes to pass.

We hope that's the case.