quot;Al-Qaida," Mr. Crocker reported, "overplayed its hand in al-Anbar, and Anbaris began to reject its excesses -- be they beheading schoolchildren or cutting off people's fingers as punishment for smoking." But Congress doesn't have to view life under al-Qaida to ingest the meaning of life under Saddam Hussein and his successors. The members of Congress, in judging the testimony of ambassador Crocker, will weigh it against what they know from their own experiences or from the writings of newsmen in whom they have confidence.
So this is not a case where Congress should defer to the executive on the grounds that the executive knows best. The executive here knows nothing that is not universally known. What matters, before the votes are cast, is relative assessments. Is Crocker correct in postulating that the departure of America from Iraq would mean the ascendancy of Iran in the region? And if that were to happen, how catastrophic would be the repercussions -- for Napa Valley, or New England?
Here Congress, using the judgment of its own members, needs to tax itself in order to vote not its conscience, exactly. To vote to sustain the huge effort we began in 2003 when the executive -- ambiguously encouraged by the legislature -- decided on war. Those members of Congress who, if they had it to do again, would vote as they did before could swell the ranks of the Libertarian Party.
U.S. elections are around the corner. And there are voters who are not persuaded by the analysis of Ambassador Crocker, or those of American newsmen. And this is of course the final branch of government: the voters. The critical questions in the halls of Congress: Will they understand if you do? And if you don't?
If the vote were mine, I'd say: Stick it out. You can't, by doing so, be accused of thoughtlessness, certainly not of perfidy.