Yesterday, Carl Levin (D-MI) signed on to the non-binding resolution proposed by Sen. John Warner (R-VA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ben Nelson, criticizing the proposed troop “surge” in Iraq. Chuck Hagel and Joe Biden signed on today, effectively making it the consensus Senate proposal on the anti-escalation front.

My fear from the beginning, when Nelson and Warner came out with this tamer resolution, was that it set the bar so low, no progress could come from it. In the name of getting as many Republican Senators to sign on as possible, the proposal was basically neutered of any effectiveness. And the further right you go on something, you inevitably will lose someone on the left. This couldn’t be any more transparent a political ploy if they tried: it’s simply a meaningless resolution designed to give cover to Senators like Warner and Collins who have to seek reelection in 2008.

It’s telling, then, that Sen. Russ Feingold, perhaps the most anti-war member of the United States Senate, thinks this is a terrible idea:

When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took up the Biden-Hagel resolution opposing the President’s troop escalation proposal last week, I supported it as a first step toward ending our involvement in this war. That resolution didn’t go nearly far enough – it was nonbinding and just focused on the escalation – but putting the Senate on record against the “surge” was a small step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the new Warner-Levin resolution that many Democrats are pushing is flawed and unacceptable. It rejects the surge, but it also misunderstands the situation in Iraq and endorses the President’s underlying approach. It’s basically a back-door authorization of the President’s misguided policies, and passing it would be a big mistake. Under the guise of constructive criticism, the Warner-Levin resolution signs off on the President continuing indefinite military operations in Iraq that will not address the fundamental political challenges in Iraq, and that continue to distract us from developing a comprehensive and global approach to the threats that face our nation.

It rejects exactly what is most needed in Iraq – an “immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces.” If you vote for this resolution, you are voting against redeploying troops from Iraq. This resolution doesn’t fix the administration’s failed Iraq policy – it just takes us back to where we were before the escalation. It’s not enough to reject the “surge” if you aren’t willing to support a plan for redeploying our troops.

Democrats in Congress have seemingly forgotten that we were in power when Congress authorized the President to go to war in Iraq. Supporting a de facto reauthorization puts us in serious jeopardy of repeating that mistake. We also have to remember that in November, Americans sent over 30 new Democratic Representatives and eight new Democratic Senators plus a very progressive Independent to fix a failed Iraq policy. The public is craving change in Iraq and a resolution like this one will not cut it. Now is the time for strong action.

I hope that after reading what Senator Feingold has to say, you can understand why I am so disappointed with many Democrats who still refuse to stand up. This isn’t about stopping the “surge.” It’s about more than that. It’s about bringing the troops home. Furthermore, the implicit message behind this resolution is that continuing the failed policy in Iraq is acceptable to this Congress. The toothless nature of this resolution against the very real proposals put forth by Sen. Feingold and Sen. Obama, respectively, is even more stark in comparison.

A significant majority of Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq by the end of next year. Unfortunately, it’s becoming clear that the U.S. Senate is still far behind public opinion on this issue, to the detriment of all.