WASHINGTON - Years from now when the historians begin analyzing the deadly mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan they will find that the one institution charged with standing guard between the civilian suits and the American troops in uniform that they command and send into harm's way utterly abdicated that vital responsibility.

The mistakes of omission and commission that abound in the record of two military operations -- one necessary, the other not -- were made by a president, a vice president and a secretary of defense and his civilian aides. But they would never have been allowed to stand uncorrected and swept under a convenient rock without the complicity of Congress, controlled by the same party that controlled the White House.

So when the time comes to point a finger don't forget those who people the marble halls of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives whose first duty seemed to be to protect the Republican Party and their president.

When they should have roared with anger they instead whimpered and whined and rolled over like puppies to have their bellies scratched.

When evidence came that general officers lied to them about their complicity, and that of their civilian overseers, in the torture and degradation of the mixed bag of foreign fighters, terrorists and dumb kids in places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, they did their best to let it slide.

When the Pentagon ordered American divisions to leave their best and safest armored vehicles behind, parked in rows on their American bases, and go to war in thin-skinned Humvees in the deadliest place in the world, Congress said nothing.

When soldiers and Marines -- many of them Guardsmen and Reservists -- were sent off to war in old and useless flak jackets instead of the best body armor money could buy, Congress wrung its hands and urged Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to do better.

When nearly 2,000 of those troops came home in military coffins to grieving families, and the secretary of defense used a machine to sign his name to letters of condolence to grieving families, the members of those august bodies the House and Senate issued press releases mourning the mounting losses.

When President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- a former general and a Republican president -- warned the nation in his farewell address in 1961 about a military-industrial complex that was gaining "unwarranted influence," he expected Congress to keep a sharp eye on those who feed at the public trough.

With this administration's style of management, and its foreign wars, the opportunity to begin dipping deeply into the Treasury was too tempting for some contractors and defense industry folks. Congress not only sat quiet for the most part but even urged them to feed more deeply in the trough.

There are exceptions. There are indeed principled and caring individual senators and representatives. But they are far and few between. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., for one. Hagel is a Vietnam veteran, and he knows war and infantry combat firsthand. He has done his best to keep his party's leaders' feet in the fire on soldier issues and veterans issues and good citizen issues.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is another Vietnam veteran who has done principled work in stopping the Boeing Co. from getting clean away with a $30 billion gift horse from Congress in an aerial tanker lease deal with the Air Force. Two people from Boeing went to prison; some others from the Air Force and Congress should be their cellmates.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the patrician chairman of Senate Armed Services Committee, has tried to straddle the fence. He too is a veteran, wore a Navy uniform, and understands soldier issues. He began as an administration cheerleader but has slowly come to see the evil that is being done and to speak up about that.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who serves in the active Reserves, speaks out against the way the administration is conducting the war and joined McCain and Warner in slipping a small law into the Defense Appropriations Act that would ban the torture or deliberate degradation of any detainee in U.S. hands.

The Democrats are happy to criticize, but like their last presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who offered no better alternative to staying the course in Iraq, they are hamstrung by the lack of an alternative. Absent that, they are dead in the water.

Should a larger number of members of both parties suddenly find some courage and a few convictions, might we suggest that they start getting tough with the White House and the Pentagon, or else start polishing their resumes?

We might even suggest the creation of a Wartime Profiteering Commission like the one established during World War II. Chairmanship was handed to a little-known senator from Missouri named Harry S. Truman. He turned out to be a fireball when it came to getting the snouts out of the public trough. If you stole from the government, and cheated America's soldiers of the best equipment, arms and ammunition they deserved, Harry Truman put you out of business or in prison, or both. A Truman Commission is needed right now.

A Congress with a great deal more backbone is even more desperately needed.

A good point by a knowledgeable writer.Some of his observations are silly;getting on the SecDef ass because he didn't hand sign condolence letters is petty shit.Telling Congress to grow a spine is right on.... but hopeless.

There is always ambivalence about war. We send young people off to die for political reasons or, hopefully, for the greater good. It seems to have become unpatriotic to question the Administration about the war or its conduct and that is the greater evil.

Congress has the responsibility, as one of its duties, keep a watch on the executive branch and not let one man have too much power. The President can send troops anywhere but he cannot authorize the extra money.

We seem to define by party and not political beliefs these days because there is less of a smattering of liberal and conservative members in each party. If a Democrat (for example) says we need more troops in Iraq, he is accused of making the party hard to define because others may wish to stop the war altogether. The pressure begins.

On the Republican side (as an example), you could have the “party” try to get you replaced by running someone in the primary who is more closely aligned to some ridged belief.

Having one party in control is bad for the country and always has been. Having a congress that is in lock step with the president is even worse. Politics demands argument and dissention with respect for the other side’s beliefs. We lost that years ago and cannot expect this congress to do the job of insuring that the American people, including their military, get the best we can possibly afford to have without any undo interference with our lives.

And that signing the letters thing is not silly, it is the point of taking the time because people are what this country is and casualties have been small. It is like having one’s secretary send the wife flowers on her birthday – nothing personal about it.