Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Politics

Failure is sales tool for Iraq bill

By WES ALLISON
Published March 22, 2007

WASHINGTON - Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a moderate Democrat from California, was imploring a roomful of skeptical liberal activists to support the upcoming Democratic bill that would set a timetable for ending the war in Iraq.

It wouldn't end the war as rapidly as they would like. But by forcing the Iraqis to meet political and military benchmarks or face the loss of U.S. support, she reminded them that a chamber of Congress has its first real chance to restrict President Bush's authority to wage unfettered war in Iraq.

"The president has to certify there is real progress," Tauscher told the activists Monday at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank.

"That's going to be hard to do, by the way."

Friday, House Democrats hope to pass a $124-billion spending bill that calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. At its heart is a provision that would start the withdrawal of U.S. troops as soon as July 1 if the Iraqi government fails to make progress on benchmarks Bush outlined in January.

The construct was designed to give Democrats a politically viable way to make a statement on Iraq, while holding together a tenuous coalition of conservatives and liberals.

But many foreign policy experts say it is unrealistic to expect the Iraqis to meet that timetable - unless President Bush grades the Iraqis on a generous curve. With 3,200 U.S. deaths and widespread chaos in Iraq, some members and aides acknowledge the likelihood of falling short was a selling point for liberal lawmakers whose constituents want to end the war.

"A lot of Democrats have already given up on the war. The question now is finding a political vehicle that can withstand domestic scrutiny, and it all sounds so reasonable," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

* * *

The Democrats' vehicle for action is Bush's latest "supplemental" request for nearly $100-billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In many ways, the spending bill is like the old woman who swallowed the fly:

Democratic leaders started with language that prohibits Bush from sending troops to Iraq unless they meet the military's own standards for training and equipment - a back-door way to reduce the number of Americans on the ground.

But to catch conservatives uneasy with constraining the commander in chief, they added a provision allowing the president to waive those restrictions.

Then, to catch liberals who felt the measure had been declawed, they added the timetable.

Lastly, they added some $20-billion in pork, including hurricane recovery on the Gulf Coast, peanut storage in Georgia and relief for California spinach farmers hit by an E. coli scare.

Republican leaders have derided the bill as an orgy of vote-buying. They also contend that setting a timetable for withdrawal will encourage the enemy and discourage troops.

"Surely our bravest men and women deserve better than to have their government send them much-needed resources and reinforcements with strings attached, and a pink slip to follow," said Rep. Adam Putnam of Bartow, the third-ranking House Republican.

With Republicans nearly united against it and Democrats on the left and right fringes opposed or undecided, House leaders scrambled Wednesday to secure the 218 votes to pass it.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-chairman of the House Progressive Caucus, and other liberals say they don't trust President Bush to tell the truth about the Iraqis' progress, and they will likely vote against the measure.

But the bill is gaining support among liberals who believe it's an important first step.

Moderate Democrats liked the idea of putting the onus on Iraqis, believing it defends them against Republican charges they're undermining the troops.

"We're giving the Iraqi government a date by which they have to get their act together - this is what people in my district are interested in," said Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Venus, a member of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. "This bill holds the president accountable to the American people."

* * *

The idea of holding the Iraqis to standards isn't new. The December report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended forcing them to meet milestones. The report also recommended that U.S. troops begin leaving early next year.

The president, however, has offered benchmarks without deadlines or consequences.

Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff and an adviser to the Iraq Study Group, recently returned from consulting with top generals in Iraq. Keane said Bush is pushing Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki hard, and he has seen encouraging signs that suggest the Iraqis could meet the timetable.

Tribal leaders in the Anbar province are rejecting the influence of al-Qaida and insurgent forces there. A proposal for sharing oil revenues among the Kurdish north, Sunni middle, and Shiite south is being debated, though it's stalled in the Cabinet.

"We can't be triumphant about it," Keane said. "But we can be encouraged."

On one hand, the argument is largely academic - nothing so rigid as the House bill is likely to pass the Senate, and Bush has vowed to veto it if it does. But Democrats and defense analysts say having the debate will push the president to demand more from the Iraqi government.

But several experts said the Democrats should be more flexible. The surge of 21,500 U.S. troops to secure Baghdad isn't to be complete until May.

"You're almost ensuring the benchmarks can't be met," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

O'Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, said that "with the categorical nature of the bill, it sounds like the demands will fail, and regardless of what happens we will be out by next year anyway. That all sort of gives away the underlying motive."

Wes Allison can be reached at allison@sptimes.com or (202) 463-0577.

Benchmarks

Under a bill the U.S. House may consider as early as Friday, President Bush must certify to Congress that Iraqis are making substantial progress on a series of military and political reforms by July 1.

By Oct. 1, he must certify the Iraqis have met these and other benchmarks. If the Iraqis miss either goal, U.S. troops will leave in 180 days.

Here are the highlights:

By July 1

- Ensure U.S. and Iraqi forces have government authority to pursue all extremists, including Shiite militias.

- Make progress toward using Iraqi security forces in Baghdad.

- Increase efforts "to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security."

- Reduce militia control of local security and begin establishing a strong militia disarmament program.

- More fair and just enforcement of all laws.

- Make progress on eradicating "safe havens" for insurgents and others who resort to violence.

- Make "substantial progress" in reducing the sectarian violence in Iraq.

By Oct. 1, 2007

- Enact a "broadly accepted" law for equitably sharing oil revenues among all Iraqis.

- Adopt legislation for the conduct of provincial and local elections and set a schedule for those elections.

- Reform current laws governing de-Baathification, so those who were in the Saddam Hussein's Baath Party - including many civil servants - are not unduly discriminated against.

- Allocate spending $10-billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of "essential services," like power and water, on an "equitable basis."

By March 31, 2008

U.S. combat troops must leave Iraq, except those who are training Iraqis, protecting U.S. interests, and securing the border.

[Last modified March 22, 2007, 02:04:41]