CQ’s Five Realities in Iraq Policy

Congressional Quarterly’s CQ Weekly has a “Reality Check” When it comes to Iraq policy that is good at focusing on the critical elements that are shaping the Iraq debate.  Since CQ Weekly is a subscription service, I have summarized the Five Realities:

1. The Reports coming out this month will change few positions – Members of Congress will see what they want to see in the reports.  Republicans will focus on the progress that the reports explain, while Democrats will point to the shortfalls of U.S. Iraqi operations.
2. Bush still has the upper hand in foreign policy – Bush is still Commander in Chief and he still has the power of the veto.  In the Senate the Republicans are able to filibuster any bills that run counter to the President’s goals.  The Democrats do not want to be viewed as abandoning the troops, so they do not want to take a hard line on spending for Iraq and Defense.  Even if the Democrats work with Republicans to meet the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, a veto by Bush would still be upheld without 67 votes.
3. It’s not just the numbers, it’s the mission – The troop levels will remain the same for the next few months in order to carry out the mission associated with the surge.  Troops will have to begin to be drawn down next spring because the current troop levels are unsustainable if troop deployments are not extended past the current 15 months. The debate next year will be over the number of troops that remain after the next draw down.
4. Maliki may be weak, but a strong central government still matters – The reason given for the surge in the number of U.S. troops was to give the Maliki government the breathing space that they need to complete the necessary political step to stabilize Iraq.  Maliki’s failure in using this time to get the Iraqi parliament to pass critical legislation and to take essential steps in solidifying the government’s role has been one of the biggest failures of the surge.
5. Of all Iraq’s neighbors, Iran is most critical to Iraq’s successful stabilization – If the Maliki government fails, then tribes may turn to other sponsors for money and support.  While Saudi Arabia and Syria would have a role to play, it is the standoff between the U.S. and Iran that is preventing a region-wide conference and potential broad solutions from being debated and implemented.

U.S. Casualties in Iraq as of 8/29/2007

 

Table 1. Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. Fatalities and Wounded as of August 29, 2007, 10 a.m. EST
Fatalities	March 19, 2003, to the Present	May 1, 2003, to the Present	Wounded	March 19, 2003, to the Present
Hostile Non-hostile  Total	3,057 674  3,731	2,942  643  3,585	In actiona  Not Returned to Duty —	27,662  12,429 —
Source:DOD press releases.

 

a.	Includes the “Not Returned to Duty” figure.

Line in the Sand

Wednesday’s Washington Post and other sources are reporting that the Bush Administration is expected to request an additional $50 billion from Congress for the war in Iraq. The Post article by Thomas Ricks points out that this request is in addition to the $460 billion 2008 Defense Budget currently in the appropriations process, and the $147 billion supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the details of the request have yet to come out, the news of the request demonstrates that the Bush Administration has no fear of the Democrats, who control Congress, doing anything about stopping funding or starting to end US involvement in the war.

The month of September is critical in the debate to end US involvement in Iraq. Over the next 5 weeks: 1) The GAO Report on the Iraqi benchmarks is due September 1st, though that is a Saturday so most attention will come to it over next week. 2) The White House version of the Patraeus report will be released around September 15th. While a snow job is expected to some degree, the hearings by General Patraeus before the House and Senate Armed Services Committee should reveal some information about whether the surge is having an impact that is greater than tampering down violence in areas where US troops are patrolling in greater numbers. The key element in my mind is whether training of Iraqi security forces is actually moving forward at a reasonable pace. 3) The Defense Appropriations Bill — this is the bill that must pass at some point in the next couple of months. The Democrats have the opportunity to use this bill as a vehicle to begin a drawdown of troops, as well as insert other requirements for the Administration to follow that would begin to lower US involvement in Iraq.

These events mean that Iraq will be part of the congressional debate for the next few weeks — and it means that we are at a critical juncture in implementing Iraq policy — if it could be called that. This is where the Dmeocrats must draw a line in the sand. Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid has promised No More Blank Checks for the Administration when it comes to Iraq, but his aquiescence on extending the no-review FISA policy does not give me much faith in his resolve on these issues.

We must now draw a Line in the Sand — it is THIS request that the Dmeocrats must stand against. This White House has been so incompetent in its administration of the occupation and in countering the insurgency that, even if someone supported the war in the past, it should be clear that this White House does not deserve more funds. This is NOT about the troops — funds can be moved to make certain that they are getting the supplies they need… This is about: Reports that over 100,000 arms delivered by the US are unaccounted for; that there is no real Iraqi security force that could actually protect anything — despite 5 years of supposed training; that Al Qaeda is as strong now as it was on September 11th, 2001; that the refugee crisis in neighboring countries is growing more unsustainable by the day and the US is hardly assisting; that Iran has become more powerful due to US involvement in Iraq; that the US military is stretched thin both in terms of manpower and its ability to respond to crises in other parts of the world; that the disbandment of the Iraqi military and De-Baathification that took place early on exacerbated the so-called insurgency; that the US is now seen negatively by the vast majority of Iraqis who don’t accept the occupation; that US troops are now in the middle of a Civil War when the invasion was supposed to be about Saddam Hussein; that the government in Iraq is not only incompetent but seems to be actively opposing the goals leading to stability that have been set forth.

The Bush Administration has not in any way proven that the funds that are given to them are spent either wisely or in the best interests of the citizens of the United States. If the Democrats roll over in September and October and give the White House all that they are requesting, then it proves that there is no true oversight by Congress, and at least in terms of Iraq, the Democratic takeover was for naught.

I have created this blog to follow the Iraq debate in Washington over the next few months. I want to make sure that we are all informed as to what the shape of the debate is, what the facts appear to be, and what the Democrats are proposing. Please feel free to comment and tell us what you think is important, articles and documents of note, and events that you think are noteworthy. This request is our Line in the Sand — we must hold the feet of Members of Congress to the fire.