A friend from out of town joined us for dinner. He noticed signs supporting next week's referendum to bring home the troops from Iraq and said he wished his community engaged national issues with the same vigorous debate.

Madisonians are truly engaged on both sides of the referendum. Next week's election will show us, democratically, which sentiment prevails. But the opponents have failed to make a convincing case.

A principal criticism is that expressions of public sentiment against the war bolster the enemy by showing our weakness. One critic says the referendum feeds the perception that "We can talk tough, but when it comes to action, we don't have what it takes. We can't sustain a long effort." So is it our obligation to demonstrate that we're tough enough to fight endless fights, regardless of the merits of the enterprise?

Another blogger asserts that our success militarily is largely determined by troop morale, and our troops' success is undermined by a lack of public support.

Both arguments stand on a perceptual house of cards: worry about how terrorists will see us or worry about how our troops see themselves. Aside from the fact that polls already demonstrate public skepticism, troop morale is more palpably undermined by seeing firsthand the daily evidence of the failure of their enterprise.

And surely the most dangerous enemy perceptions are those we feed every day we are there: that America is hostile to Islam and that a righteous path for a true believing young Muslim is to train in terrorism to fight us. Would opponents argue that in order to appear strong, Americans must support any military commitments by any president, no matter how ill-conceived or how destructive of the real interests of our nation?

If peaceful and democratic expressions of lack of support are unpatriotic, what remedy does the public have against a commander-in-chief who committed our nation to war under false pretenses? Impeachment?

Do we not have the stomach for a long effort, or is it clear to most people that the president's ill-conceived cowboy strategy is badly misaligned with our mission? We've failed to stop the most dangerous elements in Iraq in part because we have so badly alienated Iraqis who could support us. Can't we more successfully quench the dangerous fire of terrorism by removing the constant excuse for radicals to train new recruits rather than by sending more soldiers on a fruitless mission?

Is it unpatriotic to question the president's judgment? I think of retired Gen. Tony McPeak, who headed the Air Force during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. He joined other former military brass in opposing President Bush's re-election in 2004. General McPeak said, "Because of the Pollyannish assumptions that were made by the administration in going in there ... we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. And so you see here, unfolding in front of us, a terrible disaster."

It takes tremendous concern for military leaders, trained to toe the line of the military hierarchy, to speak out this way. It is equally appropriate for citizens to express their doubts about these strategies.

Other common criticisms of the referendum are that it is nonbinding, costing taxpayers money, and that local citizens shouldn't address military policy. But this war has tremendous impact locally, both through the loss of lives and the financial burden. The war's approximately $85 billion annual average cost has sucked funding out of housing, health care, education, conservation and other crucial domestic programs. Further, our children will be paying down the deficit created by this war for years to come.

Madison's referendum reads: "Resolved: The United States should bring all military personnel home from Iraq now." One can quibble about the timing, but the imperative is clear. Citizens should use the referendum to voice their objections to the war.

Margaret Krome of Madison writes a semimonthly column for The Capital Times. E-mail to: mkrome@inxpress.net

© The Capital Times

###