Iraq: One Small Step
With threats to the troops as his sole remaining argument, President Bush last night won one more round for his failed Iraq strategy.
MAY 25, 2007 | by Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, and Matt Corley Contact Us | Tell-a-Friend | Archives | Mobile |
IRAQ
One Small Step
With threats to the troops as his sole remaining argument, President Bush last night won one more round for his failed Iraq strategy. The House and Senate “bow[ed] to President Bush” and passed a war spending bill that places only mild accountability over the course in Iraq. The final bill omitted a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but established “a series of goals for the Iraqi government to meet…although Bush retains the authority to order that the funds be spent regardless of how the Baghdad government performs.” Bush cheered the compromise legislation yesterday afternoon, claiming that it provides “a clear road map on the way forward.” Just four weeks ago, on May 1 — the fourth anniversary of “Mission Accomplished” — the President vetoed a bill that would have conditioned funding for Iraq on a phased redeployment. Since that time, the White House has remained stubbornly intractable, claiming that if it did not receive the funding entirely on its own terms, “the troops in Iraq will be stranded.” Faced with this proposition, congressional leaders asserted a higher responsibility over the forces on the ground. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) explained why he supported the bill: “There is a point when the money for our troops in Iraq will run out, and when it does, our men and women serving courageously in Iraq will be the ones who will suffer, not this president.” Last night’s passage sets up future confrontations with Bush over the course in Iraq, requiring the administration to present progress reports in July and September. “This is not the end of the debate,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who voted against the bill. Congressional leaders promised “to renew the push for a withdrawal in future bills on Pentagon spending and policy.” PREPARING FOR SEPTEMBER: Both Democrats and Republicans have begun rallying around a September deadline to reassess Bush’s Iraq strategy. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who sobbed uncontrollably during the House floor debate last night, said recently, “By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn’t, what’s Plan B?” Murtha echoed the sentiment, arguing, “While we don’t have the votes right now to change the president’s policy, I believe that come September we will have the votes.” The success of a September reassessment is conditioned upon a forthcoming and candid report from Gen. David Petraeus, the commanding general in Iraq. But recently, Petraeus has suggested that his report will not say “anything definitive.” Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb writes, “Petraeus is not a reliable source for an unbiased assessment.” Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) predicted yesterday, “You know what’s going to happen in September? They’ll bring General Petraeus back and he’ll say, Just give me until the end of year, I think things are turning around. And then we’ll be out of session, come back in late January, February, and the fact is a thousand more troops will lose their lives in a situation that doesn’t make any sense and it is hurting our military, hurting our country.” The proper course for Congress to take, Korb argues, “is to have an independent assessment by an outside group.” BAD CALCULUS: The New York Times reported yesterday that some congressional leaders decided to concede in the battle with Bush because they feared that “White House attacks that they were on vacation” over Memorial Day weekend would be more “politically threatening…than the anger [they] knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.” Concern over the disastrous impact that the Iraq war is having on America’s national security — not concern over “White House attacks” — should be driving our elected representatives’ decisionmaking. As The Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum writes, “Our primary focus should be on why this is a bad war and why our national security would be improved by getting out.” But even as lawmakers are taking political winds into account, they have demonstrated extremely poor calculus. The White House has little sway in the court of public opinion. Seventy-six percent of Americans say things are going badly in Iraq, 63 percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008, and only 23 percent approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq. As Feingold said yesterday, “This is no time to back off.” As Congress prepares for its future encounters with the White House, the steady and strong resolve of the American public should weigh more heavily in its mind than concern over “White House attacks,” remaining mindful of the 2006 election results. THE NEXT STEPS: House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI), who voted for the bill last night, has pledged to continue the fight for an Iraq timeline “on every vehicle available to us,” adding that the “first two vehicles that we expect to join the issue on are the defense appropriations bill in July and the defense supplemental appropriations bill in September.” Congress has a number of options available to assert its shared power on Iraq policy. Murtha had offered a measure to require the Pentagon to certify that troops leaving for Iraq are “fully combat-ready,” with sufficient training and equipment, but congressional leaders backed down over White House refusals to adopt it. Congress should also revisit enforceable benchmarks, not only over the Iraqi government but over the Bush administration. Some senators, including Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), have suggested rescinding the war authorization given to Bush in Oct. 2002 as a way to transition the mission in Iraq. And yet one more tool for Congress to consider is providing shorter installments of funding, a plan that was passed in the House but held up in the Senate.
|
“America’s lowest-paid workers won a $2.10 raise Thursday, with Congress approving the first increase in the federal minimum wage in almost a decade.” NEW JERSEY: State senators propose a plan to make New Jersey the third state in the nation to offer paid family leave. OKLAHOMA: New law prohibits public funds from being used for abortions except in cases of rape or incest. LOUISIANA: Murders in New Orleans jump by 182 percent, and “police fear it could go even higher with the scheduled withdrawal of National Guard troops from the city next month.” MILITARY: “All but one state — THINK PROGRESS: “Pro-life” activist: birth control is a “pesticide” that will make women just “like men.” SECRECY NEWS: New FISA court appointee was judge in “Scooter” Libby’s perjury trial. TV NEWSER: Fox News covers the Iraq war significantly less than do CNN or MSNBC.
“The level of sectarian violence is an important indicator of whether or not the strategy that we have implemented is working. Since our operation began, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.” VERSUS Q: Mr. President, are you surprised by reports today from the Iraqis that sectarian killings are actually on the rise to pre- troop surge levels? […] |
The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.