Mangling the Mandate
The Democrats' Fraudulent Iraq Exit Plan
Counterpunch
March 13, 2007
By KEVIN ZEESE
The Democrats took the majority of both the House and Senate on
January 4th, 2007 since then 192 members of the Armed Services
have died as have countless Iraqi civilians. With power comes
responsibility, so voters should know that this is now the
Democrats War and every death and casualty is their
responsibility.
When they came to power their leadership said they would not use
the "power of the purse" to end the war. But pressure from
voters opposed to the Iraq quagmire has changed their tune. Last
week an obviously frustrated Rep. David Obey told Marine Mom,
Tina Richardsin a Capitol Hill hallway encounter that his
appropriations bill would de-authorize the war.
I went to Capitol Hill as part of a support delegation for Tina
Richards this Monday to return to Rep. Obey's office to seek
clarification of his hallway comments. There has been a lot of
deal making by Congressional leaders to line up support for the
Iraq War supplemental. They are adding billions in goodies for
constituents, for Midwest farmers, avocado growers, communities
that have lost bases, Katrina relief, Veterans and other goodies
to gather votes.
The headline that the Democratic leadership would like voters to
hear is "troops out of Iraq by August 2008." But the headline is
more a wolf in sheep's clothing than a reality. After hearing
details of the bill from Obey's appropriations staff person the
loopholes may define the law more than the headline.
For most in the peace movement an August 2008 deadline for
withdrawal is already way too slow. Why the delay? On November
17, 2005 Rep. Jack Murtha called for redeployment within six
months. Here we are sixteen months later and the Democratic
leadership is talking about redeployment in seventeen months!
Six months has turned into 33 months and in fact the August
deadline is illusory. How many lives U.S. and Iraqi will
have been lost in this quagmire over this time period?
But, that is not the worst of it. As Rep. Maxine Waters, the
Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus point out, a few weeks ago the
Congress passed a non-binding resolution against the so-called
"surge" but this appropriation will actually pay for the surge
which has grown since their vote by more than 8,200 troops.
Indeed, the Democrats are poised to give Bush up to $20 billion
more than he asked for!
The appropriation initially was going to require that only
combat ready troops could be sent to Iraq. But in order to
please "Blue Dog Democrats" and some Republicans the bill is now
merely a requirement that Bush report to Congress if non-combat
ready troops are used in Iraq. Since when do conservatives want
us sending troops to wars who are not fully trained or equipped
for combat? Combat readiness has become a symbolic requirement
that will at best embarrass the commander in chief but it will
not stop deployment of troops unprepared for battle.
And, it keeps getting worse. Regarding the August 2008 deadline
not all troops are being redeployed (the bill does not say to
where). The bill leaves four categories of soldiers who can
remain in Iraq. These include troops to guard the U.S. Embassy
in Iraq. This is the largest Embassy in the world a city
within a city so who knows how many troops that will take.
Also, troops involved in diplomatic and consular affairs will
remain in Iraq.
But, the two big categories allow troops to remain in Iraq to
fight Al Qaeda and to train the Iraqi military and police.
President Bush has called Iraq one front in the war on terror,
where the main target in the war on terror is Al Qaeda. Indeed,
"we're in Iraq to fight them over there rather than over here,"
according to the president. Further, he claimed that Saddam and
Osama were working together and Vice President Cheney still
makes that claim. And, throughout the Iraq War the resistance in
Iraq has been defined as terrorists and there have been no solid
numbers regarding how many Al Qaeda fighters are in Iraq. And,
can you imagine the intelligence-leak drumbeat as that deadline
approaches. There will be story after story planted in the
establishment media about Al Qaeda coming to Iraq in preparation
for the U.S. exit. This hole is so large by itself to make the
Democratic exit strategy a virtual mirage.
And, then there is the training of Iraqi military and police.
How many trainers will the U.S. have for an Iraqi military and
police that will be in the very high hundreds of thousands,
perhaps over a million? Will training include U.S. soldiers
being embedded in the Iraq military or police as part of
training them? This is another gigantic loophole that makes the
withdrawal more a "stay the course" plan then a real withdrawal.
But, the thing that makes this supplemental appropriation
particularly dangerous is the Democratic leadership decision not
to raise the question of forbidding military force against Iran.
The Bush administration has been beating the war drums for a
military attack on Iran for months. It had been reported that
the spending bill would have required congressional approval,
with some exceptions, before using military force against Iran.
The Congressional Quarterly reported on March 8, 2007 that "The
influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee also is
working to keep the language out, said an aide to a pro-Israel
lawmaker." Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the consigliore for the hard right
Israeli lobby in the House of Representatives a congressman
who was a civilian volunteer with the Israeli army during the
first Gulf War, is quoted as predicting "that the language would
ultimately not be included in the supplemental on the House
side."
On the 8th CQ reported "a Democratic leadership aide said there
are no plans to remove
the provision. 'There's heat,' the leadership aide acknowledged.
'We've heard
their concerns, but we think it's likely to remain on the
bill.'" Less than a week later it seems the hard right Israeli
lobby, which is often the puppet master of U.S. foreign policy,
has gotten the provision removed.
Thus, the Congress has decided to put up no barriers to a Bush
attack on Iran. In hearings before Sen. Russell Feingold this
January legal experts said that the original use of force
resolution, the power of the president to act to defend U.S.
national security and the authority of the president to
introduce troops into "hostilities, but not into a war" may be
sufficient to allow military action against Iran absent
congressional action. If Congress put up barriers requiring
Congressional approval or restricting the use of funds
appropriated than that would limit the president's authority.
But without Congressional action, Bush could act militarily
against Iran.
So, the slow exit of the Democratic leadership will in the best
case scenario be a partial exit that could keep tens of
thousands (or more) troops in the Iraq quagmire. And, their
failure to curtail the president's authority regarding Iran will
give him the unbridled path he needs to go forward with military
action against that country. This supplemental may result in a
bigger Mid-East war in 2007, rather than a real exit from Iraq.
Is this what the November 2006 anti-war mandate was for?
--
Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US and co-founder of
VotersForPeace.US.
Source
|
