Over the past couple of weeks, much has been made in the media about legislative proposals from Democrats and Republicans alike that are designed to "change the United States policy" in Iraq. According to numerous press reports, Democrats are considering a number of different amendments and legislative proposals to change Iraq policy, while the White House and neo-conservative proponents of the war are reportedly aggressively lobbying to keep soldiers in Iraq.
Recent statements by Republican Senators have also gained considerable attention in the media. In late June, Republican Senator Richard Lugar said that the US strategy in Iraq is not working and that there must be a "draw down" of US troops. Republican Senator George Voinovich sent a letter urging President Bush to develop a "comprehensive plan for our country's gradual military disengagement," while Senator Pete Domenici called for "a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path of coming home." All of these statements are a part of what many Democrats are hoping will be an increase in votes for Democratic proposals aimed at changing Iraq policy in upcoming votes. However, it is worth noting that most of these statements are just that--statements--and do not offer any sincere legislative proposals. Certainly with the case of Grand Rapids area Congressman Vern Ehlers who has repeatedly described the United States as having "destroyed" and "messed up" Iraq while offering no proposals to change the policy and continuing to vote for funding the war as an example, it is clear that until votes are counted, these Republicans should not be counted on or trusted by either Democrats or the antiwar movement.
Unfortunately, most of the proposals being considered--even by allegedly "antiwar" Democrats--fail to do anything to support an immediate end to the occupation and thus fail to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under the occupation. In the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi is expected to introduce legislation later this month that would call for withdrawal of US forces by April 1, 2008. After the collapse of a previous measure making a similar claim--in large part due to the Democrats' abandoning all of their demands--the prospects for success are unclear. The Webb Troop-Readiness amendment would increase the amount of time soldiers spend at home between deployments, effectively meaning that the military would not be able to sustain "the surge" and possibly creating a climate in which both Republicans and Democrats could begin to push responsibility for the failure in Iraq onto the military. Democratic Senators Levin (Michigan) and Reed are expected to introduce a measure calling for the start of withdrawal to being within 120 days of passage and conclude by April 1, 2008, effectively continuing the slaughter in Iraq for another nine months. Its unclear as to whether or not the bill would include provisions blaming the Iraqis for failing to meet US "benchmarks" or requiring that they meet "benchmarks" for withdrawal, as Levin has been a strong proponent of such benchmarks in the past. Senator Feingold is advocating a proposal similar to Levin's but with the added provision that funding would be cut by April 1, 2008. Senator Hillary Clinton is promoting a proposal that would revoke the 2002 authorization for the war, but it does nothing to bring an end to the war. A final bi-partisan bill proposed by Senators Salazar and Domenici would require that the President adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group as US policy. The bill would have no specific call for withdrawal, and like the Iraq Study Group report, would advocate an imperial Middle East policy.
Many of the proposals are rooted in an imperialist view of the world with the assumption that the United States has the authority--both legally and morally--to enforce its will on Iraq. None of the proposals take into account the wishes of the Iraqi people, nor their daily suffering under the occupation. There is no discussion of the illegality of the war under international law, the 655,000+ Iraqis that have been killed, the complete decimation of Iraq's infrastructure, the presence of private security forces, or the permanent bases built in Iraq. Instead, the proposals are geared towards what is deemed to be politically expedient in the United States--making the Democrats appear to be an antiwar party while at the same time allowing Republicans to disassociate themselves from Bush's policy in Iraq.
The national antiwar movement, much of which has long advocated an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq and advocated withholding funding as a means of ending the war, has expressed caution and criticism over the Democratic plans. In an email sent to its members and supporters on Monday and titled "Don't Mend It, END It!" the group United for Peace and Justice the group expressed the following concerns:
Too many members of Congress may support a troop reduction but settle for a modified version of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. They may vote to bring "combat" troops home, but allow Bush to keep tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq to "fight terrorism," protect U.S. installations and train Iraqi troops. And they are doing nothing to address the growing numbers of U.S. mercenaries involved in the occupation -- mercenaries now outnumber troops in Iraq.
UFPJ is concerned that many members of Congress will be willing to open the door to a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq in exchange for the near-term withdrawal of some troops. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Defense Secretary Robert Gates and some allies in the Bush administration are seeking to build bipartisan political support for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq by moving toward withdrawing significant numbers of troops from Iraq by the end of President Bush's term" (July 3, 2007). This is a dangerous development.
Prominent antiwar groups including Code Pink,/a> and Military Families Speak Out have also continued to speak out in support of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq.
For his part, President Bush claims to be unconcerned about the debate in Congress. At a speech today in Cleveland, Bush said he welcomes "a good, honest debate about the consequences of failure, the consequences of success in this war," but that he believes that more time is needed for "the surge" to have an effect. He further argued that Congress should "wait for General Petraeus to come back and give his assessment of the strategy that he's putting in place before they make any decisions." Petraeus' assessment is due in September, although Petraeus has said that "the surge" may not be able to be evaluated by September. In comments before his speech, Bush said troop levels "will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington," suggesting that the Democrats and the antiwar movement will need to seriously pressure the Bush administration to change policy.
