Despite strong support for withdrawal reflected in national opinion polls, the United States Senate and House of Representatives failed to adopt positions calling for the withdrawal of the United States military from Iraq last week. The Senate voted down two amendments to a military appropriations bill calling for the removal of United States troops from Iraq while the House of Representatives affirmed its ongoing support for the United States’ occupation of Iraq. While much was made of the debates held over the war in the House and Senate, no position was reached in favor of ending the war and consequently, the Bush administration’s plan of indefinite occupation remains the official policy of the United States.

Of the two withdrawal plans considered by the United States Senate last week, a plan submitted by former war supporter Senator John Kerry was the most strongly worded, calling for a complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007 and redeployments beginning this year. However, as the Democratic Party remains uncertain about its position on Iraq, the Kerry amendment garnered only thirteen votes. Democrats and Republicans alike rejected Kerry’s timeline for a withdrawal in an 86 to 13 vote that failed to gain the support of all but a few Senators, three of whom were co-sponsors of the amendment. Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow voted against the Kerry amendment.

As an alternative to the amendment offered by Kerry, Michigan Senator Carl Levin offered his own amendment that called for a “phased redeployment” of US troops. Levin’s plan called for a halting of the United States current “open-ended” deployment to Iraq and urged the Bush administration to begin redeploying US forces by the end of 2006. In a floor speech on June 21, Levin explained that his amendment had three key components—the phased redeployment of US forces to begin at the end of the year following consultation with the government of Iraq, the submission of a plan to Congress by the President with estimated dates for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq, and to expedite the process of transitioning US soldiers to a limited presence that provides support services to Iraqi forces. Throughout his speech Levin responded to concerns about the United States “cutting and running” in Iraq as Levin went to great lengths to offer qualifiers that the plan’s dates would be “estimates,” that there is no establishment of a “timetable” for redeployment, and that the dates may change due to “contingencies.” Levin further argued that the supporters of the amendment were “determined to maximize prospects of success in Iraq” and that the continued presence of US troops in the country fosters a “culture of dependency” and that reducing the number of US troops in Iraq will both force Iraqis to become “responsible” for their future and lessen the number of insurgents motivated by the continued presence of US soldiers on Iraqi soil. Ultimately, Levin’s amendment was soundly defeated in a 60 to 39 vote. Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow voted in favor of Levin’s amendment. It is also worth noting that while this weak resolution gained the support of almost the entire Democratic Party, three Democrats—Lieberman of Connecticut, Nelson of Florida, and Nelson of Nebraska—voted against the amendment and in favor of an indefinite occupation of Iraq.

In the House of Representatives, Congress voted in favor of House Resolution 861 that rejects deadlines for a withdrawal from Iraq and declares continued congressional support for the Bush administration’s war on terror. The resolution passed by the House begins by affirming that the United States is engaged in a “Global War on Terror” of which Iraq “constituted a threat against global peace and security” and thus is a central component of the “war on terror.” The resolution declares that “it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq” and that the United States is “committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq” as a part of the “the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary” that is the “Global War on Terror.” During the debate, Republican leaders prohibited amendments as well as the introduction of rival declarations, thus forcing a vote on their measure without giving critics of the war an alternative proposal to consider. As would be expected, Grand Rapids Congressional Representative Vern Ehlers voted in favor of the resolution, as did Representative Peter Hoekstra of Holland.