Think back to those halcyon days of your youth; the leaves were greener, the children were more polite, and as for getting your first driver's license – walk in the park, right? Perhaps not. At least, in most states, getting your driver's license renewed is pretty simple. For now anyway.

At the moment, Congress is working to require states to make it more difficult for citizens to obtain licenses. Under the new proposed rules states would have to require proof of citizenship (or legal residency), proof of address, and proof of Social Security number. (And some states also require proof of insurance and eye tests as well.)

The usual crowd is, of course, up in arms over the new proposed rules. (Folks like John Sununu and Lamar Alexander.) While criticisms of the new rules runs the gamut from fears of a national ID card system, to the usual distrust most states have for unfunded federal mandates, with national security perched in the middle.

So, with all of the interested parties speaking out against these proposed policies, there shouldn't be much of an issue here; surely, they'll be voted down. Here's the thing: they already were. According to TheLedger.com:

"Some of the ideas in the new measure were considered and dropped in December. But conservative members of the House, led by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, threatened to block passage of the intelligence bill, and won an agreement that they could try again this year. They got a pledge from the leadership to include the driver's license measures in a must-pass bill this year."

This situation is an illustration of one of the many uses of armed conflict. And, while this sort of thing isn't the primary motive for military action, it is, in some small way, what war is good for.

War, for the direct participants and their families, is Hell. But a popular war can be a positive boon for any politician trying to get some dubious legislation passed. Wars have to be funded after all, and that is generally accomplished by Congressional passage of "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations." Basically, the Pentagon delivers an estimate of how much cash they need to continue whatever military action is currently underway, the Congress writes a bill authorizing it, passes it, and sends it to the President who, being the Commander and Chief after all, usually signs it.

Voting against these supplemental appropriations is very near political suicide, since refusing to send badly needed funds to our fighting men and woman is not a very supportive thing to do. Which would be alright, assuming that the only function of these bills was to get that money where it needs to be. But, as we are clearly being shown by this whole drivers' license affair, these appropriations bills are about much, much more.

Since they are almost guaranteed to fly through the Congress on wings of gold, the temptation to hitch less popular legislation to them is irresistible to most politicians. In this case, a federal mandate for the states to only issue licenses to citizens or legal immigrants is not just pretending to be a vital part of Homeland Security (which is a debatable claim in any case) it's also trying to ride the coat-tails of a "can't-miss" piece of legislation. It's enough to make one want to change the rules.

It would take a much more cynical person than this writer to suggest that being in a constant state of military conflict is a desirable situation as far as our leadership is concerned, what with its many opportunities to pass unpopular bills in the course of its funding. So let's call it merely a fringe benefit of armed conflict. It's a horrifying thing to picture – slavering, duplicitous politicians, rubbing their hands together with glee at the thought of all the slam-dunk legislation they'll get to pass, while our troops are out there getting shot at.

-B. C. Silvia
-5/4/05