Will nobody blink?
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Legislation, Military, Money, NewsI realize that escalating rhetoric often has little to do with what will finally happen, but the bellicosity displayed in the Bush/Congress set-to over Iraq funding is pretty remarkable.
Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, with a goal of completing the pullout six months later, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.
Reid said the legislation “immediately transitions the U.S. military away from policing a civil war.” He said that troops that remain in Iraq after next April 1 could only train Iraqi security units, protect U.S forces and conduct “targeted counter-terror operations.”
The Nevada Democrat outlined the elements of the legislation in a speech a few hours after Bush said he will reject any legislation along the lines of what Democrats intend to pass. “I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job,” the president said.
So what’s emerging from the conference committee is, remarkably, harder-line than either the House or Senate versions. The House version had hard deadlines but an 18-month timeframe; the Senate version had a shorter timeframe but no deadlines, only “goals.” This hybrid version appears to combine the Senate’s timetable with at least some of the House deadlines.
As such I think it’s a bad idea. I didn’t mind either individual version, because they were either very soft limits or the timeline was sufficiently long not to have an immediate effect. But the new version simply moves too fast.
If you truly believe that what’s going on in Iraq is an intractable civil war, the bill makes sense: we have no business being there in that case. But if you believe, as I do, that Bush deserves one last chance to show he can win this thing, then an Oct. 1 deadline is simply too soon at this point.
All this may simply be attempts at blame-placing for the veto everyone knows will be coming by the end of this week. What happens after that will depend, in part, on who is more successful in the framing effort. Most likely result, I think, will be a “clean” spending bill that only runs through, say, Sept. 30. That means Bush will have to make another funding request in late summer — right about when we should be starting to get a verdict on the surge.
But what if they’re both serious? What if neither backs down? If no bill is passed, no more money is appropriated, and the war ends unless Bush can find ways to fund it out of discretionary monies — which just isn’t going to happen.
One would think that Bush would rather sign a bill with timetables than accept that. But there are other factors at work here. Neither side really wants an immediate, precipitous pullout, so each is hoping the other will blink first. Beyond that, Bush might see such a pullout as politically advantageous, because the effects would be more calamitous than a gradual pullout over the next year. He could then blame Congress for all the attendant trouble, instead of accepting that blame himself.
But much as I dislike Bush, I’m not cynical enough to believe he would do that to the Iraqis. I think he truly believes we need to stay in Iraq and can win in Iraq. So he’s not going to abandon the war just to make political points at home.
So if it comes to pure stubborn, expect Congress to blink first. And then expect a short-term funding bill that will see this debate renewed — with firmer Congressional resolve if the surge is going badly — in the fall.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 23rd, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy, Iraq, Legislation, Military, Money, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
You do know that October is just the _beginning_ of the proposed redeployment? Even if the Dems got their way entirely, US troops are still in Iraq for at least another _year_. And even then, a significant number of them will stay in the middle east.
This occupation is coming up toward completion of it’s fourth year now, and even with the Dems plan, it will end up at nearly five before it’s done. Isn’t that long enough to see progess?
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Pretty good post; except for this:
But if you believe, as I do, that Bush deserves one last chance to show he can win this thing,
Everything he touches falls apart.
in·com·pe·tent /ɪnˈkɒmpɪtənt/
–adjective
1. not competent; lacking qualification or ability; incapable: an incompetent candidate. In other words -Bush-
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
I agree, he’s proved time and time again he’s not fit to run this country (he couldn’t even manage a goddamn baseball team!!).
That’s the problem with most Americans… they are too quick to forget. Remember back in 1988, NO MORE BUllSHit? Until our main-stream media stops distracting us with American Idol and whatever else, this type of thinking that “Bush isn’t that bad” because they forgot all the past events of just last week (forget about 5 years ago) will continue.
Reminds me of the phrase: “If you’re not pissed, you’re not paying attention.”
April 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I agree with Rob…Bush has had way too many chances already to prove his incompetence and utter idiocy, and has succeeded at that goal time and time again, in every arena.
Iraq is an utter failure and disaster, there is nothing America can do to make things better there except leave, and the sooner the better.
I’m betting the Federalist Society really regrets ramrodding through a “figurehead” president like Bush, because he’s set their agenda for total governmental control by and for the rich by decades.
April 24th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I agree that Bush has demonstrated a real talent for incompetence — and hiring incompetence, as well.
But after years of saying “Security first, rebuilding second, and that means we need more troops,” I feel it’s only fair to give Bush a chance now that he has said, “You know what? We should secure the place first and *then* rebuild, and that means we need more troops!” Sure, the guy’s a slow learner, but he deserves some reward for finally catching up to the rest of the class.
Now, I think 23,000 troops is a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed, as the surge is arguably starting to show: Violence is down (though obviously not eliminated) in Baghdad, but up in neighboring provinces. But if the surge succeeds in calming Baghdad, it will show that victory *is* possible, if only we commit enough troops.
Where we will get those troops, I have no idea. But that’s a matter for debate after the surge shows it can work.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
sleipner, while I’d love to give the Federalist Society the power to elect the President, the description of the “ramrodding of a ‘figurehead” is not only disgusting, but a bit of the superflous goofatry I have come to love you by.
But the regret of which you speak is true, however it is tempered by the relief of two exceptional Supreme Court Justices. It is also tempered by the recognition of the alternative history and the solace that everyone can take when “what else was I do?”-situations arise. The Federalist Society as an organization supports no individual candidate for political office and there is no litmus test of individual members.
In the lexicon of “Stupid Things Sleipner Has Written”, and it is voluminous, this nugget may take the cake. The FS is perhaps the most respected scholarly legal organization is the US, on par and above any legal thinktank. Its agenda is ideological, not monetary. Do you you really think that the FS ideology is: Rich people should control the government to make them more rich. If that is your misconception then you have fallen down the rabbit’s hole to inescapable depth and I can only wish you good times making tinfoil hats.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
The “enemy” is willing to wait us out, and by wait I mean for GENERATIONS. They think in the very looooooong term. Thoooouuuusands of years. The question that we face is: are we willing to stay in the middle of it for generations, too? Bush says we should be willing. (Well, sure he says that, he put us there.) “Who can wait the longest?” Is that the game we want to play? “They” are really good at it. Surge, no surge, twice the troops, three times, “the enemy” is willing to sit in their holes and wait, and peek their little heads out every once in awhile and cause all kinds of nastiness. They don’t care who they kill, and they never will. It all works in their favor. The longer we’re there, the better their recruitment because our presence is proving them right, that we are threatening to take over their culture. That’s a fine mess! I thought we were there to bring them democracy? What the fuck happened? Oh, yeah, we lied about that, that’s what happened. So now we either stay on the front lines with our troops being ground into the sectarian meat grinder for GENERATIONS, or we pull out and let the chips fall where they may. Both are pretty scary, huh? Thanks, George. Why, oh why didn’t you stick to Afganistan? We had em, we fuckin had em!
Hellooooo Ethanol!