In vetoing an Iraq war-funding bill last week, President George W. Bush demonstrated once again his commitment to sustaining US military involvement in Iraq. Bush proved Congress is as of yet constitutionally incapable of usurping his power to shape regional policy.
Congress sent Bush a bill which provided much-needed funding for combat operations in Iraq, but would have required the president to begin withdrawing US forces. Backed by the leading Republican presidential candidates and his dwindling number of allies in Congress, Bush vetoed the bill.
On the surface, it would seem Bush won round one in what promises to be a continual battle with the Democratic-controlled Congress over the direction of the Iraq war. In reality however, the veto — symbolically issued on the forth anniversary of his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln — further weakened the president. As the president refuses to alter course, responsibility for the disastrous state of affairs in Iraq — labeled Bush’s war — stays entirely with the White House.
Given the overwhelming unpopularity of the war among American voters, Iraq continues to be an albatross on the neck of the president and his Republican Party. Bush’s approval ratings have sunk to a meager 28 percent. More troublesome, recent polls also show that any of the leading Democratic presidential candidates are poised to win in the 2008 election. Republicans are likely to suffer devastating setbacks in the next congressional elections, which would lead to a unified Democratic government (Congress and the White House) for the first time since 1994.
Meanwhile, the critical debate over war funding continues. The vetoed war-funding bill was only narrowly passed by Democrats, who failed to garner significant Republican support. However, while congressional Republicans stuck with the president during round one, they did so with reservations. Unless the president is willing to compromise — something he has been unwilling to do — many are now expected to break with him. Fearing the wrath of the voters and leery of the effectiveness of Bush’s prosecution of the war, Republicans have expressed a willingness to support legislation which includes benchmarks. These benchmarks would require the Iraqi government to implement policies such as oil distribution and reducing sectarian violence. In case of the Iraqi government failing to do so, Congress on a bipartisan basis would then push to withdraw US forces.
Democrats, meanwhile, are devising benchmark-based strategies that will not only split the Republicans, but absolve itself of responsibility for Iraq. Despite objections from anti-war activists who dominate the party, the Democratic leadership does not want to be blamed for hastily exiting Iraq. The party is haunted by Vietnam, when the Democratic Congress restricted funding requested by the Ford administration in the chaotic, waning days of the war. Republicans and many other Americans believe Democratic weakness contributed to the final collapse in Saigon — including the searing image of Americans evacuating by helicopter as Communist forces overran the South Vietnamese capital.
Democrats need Republican assistance to produce a war-funding bill, which has a veto-proof majority — two-thirds of both the House and Senate. Benchmarks offer the most promising option. Should they not be met, failure would be pinned on Bush and the Iraqi government. Polls show that the American public, which wants to end the war but to do so with some semblance of honor, supports the idea of benchmarks because they, alas, measure failure or success. The idea of maintaining the status quo without any exit strategy, as proffered by Bush, is unacceptable.
It is clear that despite Bush’s brave face in issuing a veto, the White House sees the writing on the wall. During his last visit to Baghdad, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates browbeat Nuri Al-Maliki and other Iraqi officials over the pace of reform. Gates stressed that the decision to adjourn the Iraqi Parliament before it passed oil-distribution legislation was foolhardy. In Egypt, Secretary of State Rice had only limited success in increasing Arab support for Maliki’s government. Vice President Cheney is embarking on a regional trip focusing on strengthening Iraq.
Collectively, one glaring conclusion can be drawn by the Bush administration’s recent activities: Desperation. Both the clock and the acrimonious political climate work against the White House. With only 18 months before the next US election, the White House understands that time is not on its side. The next president will likely have the dubious distinction of overseeing the likely chaos that will result from an American departure, but the Bush administration cannot sit idle. Politically, Congress — backed by the public — has already demonstrated it will not accept the status quo. If the already weakened Bush fails to demonstrate progress or flexibility, he will lose control of the situation altogether.
Bush himself will not be a casualty of Iraq, except in a historic sense. But his party will continue to be punished, as it was last November when Democrats captured Congress. The leading Republican presidential aspirants face a lose-lose situation — support the president’s unpopular policy which is still miraculously backed by the Republican base or break with Bush and likely lose the Republican nomination. It is a situation analogous to that faced by Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968, when he belatedly distanced himself from Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam policy — exacerbating Democratic disunity and losing the election.
