War and Peace, sans Tolstoy
The argument against a timetable was, as best I can tell, two-fold: we don't want the enemy to know what our timetable is, and Congress should leave the timetable-setting to our commanders in the field. The first one I'll readily grant. I don't love the fact that the timetable in these bills is public. It's far from ideal.
The second argument sounded reasonable at first, until I started thinking about it. Then it made no sense at all. When it comes to tactical planning and even in-theater strategic planning, yes, absolutely, the commanders in the field should be making the decisions. But the beginnings and endings of wars are always political decisions, and -- except in military dictatorships -- they're always made by civilian politicians. Civilian politicians decide when a war will start, and they must also be the ones to decide when it will end.
According to the logic of the GOP's argument, once a war has been started, the American people can't stop it. No one can stop it except "the commanders in the field," because no one can decide when it will end except those commanders; and if you can't decide when a thing will end, you can't decide that it will end. Not even the Pentagon brass or the commander-in-chief could end it, since they aren't in the field. That's not a tenable position for a democracy to be in. The military works for the civilians. It goes when the civilians say go, and it stops when the civilians say stop. In between, the military commanders should be predominantly in control; but those two endpoints are completely the purview of the civilians.
So not only can Congress decide when a war will end (whether instantly or on a timetable), they must. Ultimately, it's their responsibility. Some, particularly on the right, argue that, no, this is all up to the president, who's in charge of foreign policy and is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Personally, I have a hard time squaring that broad reading of presidential powers with Article I of the Constitution.
Regardless, the GOP acknowledges that Congress can end a war at any time when it points out that Congress can, of course, simply cut off the funding. But that then invalidates their "commanders in the field" argument against having a timetable. If Congress simply cuts off the funding instantly and immediately, like turning off a faucet, it's imposing a timetable: get everybody out right now. And if Congress can impose that timetable -- one that endangers our soldiers -- surely it can impose another -- one that doesn't. Put differently, if it can cut the funding all at once and leave everybody in the lurch, it can also say, "We're going to cut the funding by 30% on such-and-such a date, another 30% by such-and-such later date, and zero it out on such-and-such still later date. Commanders, plan your withdrawal accordingly." Should the commanders have input into those dates? Absolutely. Should they decide them? Absolutely not.
The GOP knows all this, of course. They don't really mean what they say (one hopes). All they want is to force the congressional Democrats into a false dichotomy: either cut off the funds precipitously and get a lot of our soldiers killed, or just sign the checks and butt out until we're ready to impose a timetable.
I've stated my position on the Iraq War here before. I think it was, at best, an obvious and horribly foolhardy mistake, but now that we're there, we should fight to win. So I have mixed feelings about the House and Senate bills. I would be fully opposed to them if not for the fact that it's clear to me that we, as a nation, are not going to commit fully to this fight. Not even the people who led us into it are fully committed to it. That being the case, I grudgingly lean slightly toward thinking the best course probably is to get out.
But regardless of what I think about this particular war, it's important to remember that, in America, war and peace are always political decisions. Not military ones.