As legislators return to Washington from the July 4th holiday, the Bush administration faces increased pressure to alter its Iraqi policy or face a congressional rebellion that could force the president’s hand. The public defection of a handful of senior Republican senators — led by the respected former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — is an ominous sign that even President Bush’s staunchest defenders are no longer willing to support the ongoing military campaign in Iraq.
An agreement between the White House and Congress requires the president to submit an interim report on the situation in Iraq, including 18 benchmarks which measure progress on the American military surge strategy adopted earlier this year and the development of the Iraqi government and armed forces. The report is not expected to paint a glowing picture of progress. Rather, with the US military sustaining increased casualties in recent months and horrific suicide bombings killing and maiming hundreds of Iraqis daily, the report will likely strengthen the resolve of Congress to withdraw US forces from Iraq.
But even before the report’s unveiling, the defections of prominent Senate Republicans, including Richard Lugar (Indiana) and Pete Dominici (New Mexico) stunned the White House. They join other disillusioned Republicans such as John Warner (Virginia), Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and Lamar Alexander (Tennessee), all of whom have backed Bush on key Iraq votes since the 2003 US invasion. Other Republicans, including conservatives Sam Brownback (Kansas) and Kay Bailey Hutchison — who hails from Bush’s native Texas — have indicated they support a change of tactics albeit short of troop withdrawal.
Any additional Republican defections pose a serious threat to the White House. Democrats solidly support terminating the war in Iraq, and have passed legislation on several occasions, which would do just that; Bush has vetoed this legislation. Given the unique constitutional division of power, Congress is incapable of dictating legislation to the president unless a 2/3 majority of each chamber of Congress overrides a presidential veto. With Democrats maintaining only a narrow 1-seat majority in the Senate, any congressional-mandated change in Iraq policy requires the support of a bloc of Republicans.
Lugar’s split from the White House is particularly important. The senior senator for Indiana is highly regarded in the Senate as an expert on foreign policy, and his opinions are influential within the chamber. First elected in 1976, Lugar was once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for crafting legislation that dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons. He is a Republican loyalist, but his partisanship has its limits. In the 1980s, Lugar condemned the fraudulent electoral victory of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Lugar did not back down when pressured by the Reagan administration, who stressed the importance of Marcos as a staunch American ally in the Cold War.
On the Democratic side, there is wide support for ending the military campaign in Iraq. Greatly aided by a strong anti-war message, Democrats captured control of Congress in the November 2006 elections. But despite repeated attempts to alter the Bush administration’s policy — including voting to disapprove the “surge” plan — they have been unable to muster enough support to force change. Most recently, Democrats lost a battle over war funding. Led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, they forced a showdown with President Bush by passing a bill requiring US forces to withdraw. After months of painful negotiation, they eventually agreed to provide funding for the war through September, at which time Congress and the Bush administration would revisit the issue — and judge the success or failure of the surge plan and Iraqi government.
While Bush won the initial funding battle, many pundits believe the victory was of the Pyrrhic variety. First, Bush was only able to win funding for six months, not the year, which he had initially demanded. Second, by agreeing to evaluate the situation in September, Bush conceded that progress must be made. There is now significant justification for veteran Republican members of Congress such as Lugar, as well as for rank-and-file members more susceptible to pressure from public opinion, to break with the president. For it seems highly unlikely that any report — either this week’s interim report or the more comprehensive report due in September — will demonstrate success, much less progress.
Additionally, Democrats have suffered mightily in the court of public opinion for bowing to the president in the initial funding fight. Their tortured explanation that they simply lacked the votes is true, but has little resonance with the public, which has grown impatient with the status quo. This has resulted in increased pressure on Democrats not only to rhetorically fight the president, but to force his hand.
It is clear that a majority in Congress supports change, but it is uncertain — Republican defections notwithstanding — how exactly the legislative branch will proceed. Currently there are three options on the table. One, backed by Democrat Ken Salazar and Republican Lamar Alexander, would require implementation of the Iraq Study Group report. This report included 79 separate recommendations about Iraq and Middle East policy, and included a March 31, 2008 date for the withdrawal of US military forces.
The second option, backed by Democratic Senators Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Hillary Clinton (New York) would revoke the president’s authority for conducting the Iraq war, which Congress granted in 2003. Even though the War Powers Act limits long-term military commitment without congressional authorization, it seems uncertain what exactly the Byrd-Clinton proposal would require legally. Lastly, Congress could refrain from activity until September, at which time they could deny Bush funding to prosecute the war.
— David Dumke is a political analyst and principal of the MidAmr Group. E-mail: [email protected].
