BEIRUT, 28 September 2003 — In the face of rising costs in lives and dollars in his Iraq campaign, President George W. Bush’s halcyon days on Capitol Hill are over.
Before Congress had even received the president’s recent $87 billion emergency spending request, administration officials conceded this would only cover Iraqi costs for a short period. In ordinary times, such a presumptuous move might have endangered so costly a package. After all, Bush’s Sept. 7 address in which he announced the spending increases, as well as subsequent statements, failed to silence his increasingly vocal congressional critics.
However, verbal exchanges do not necessarily lead to serious legislative setbacks. Despite sinking approval ratings, Bush still has a commanding position. The terms of the $87 billion package may be slightly altered, and future Iraq-related budget requests may face opposition, but Bush will get what he wants from Congress this time around with a minimum of bargaining.
Congress has gotten an earful from angry constituents worried about Iraq, jobs and Bush’s failure to address either. As US troops continue to be killed on a near-daily basis, the cost of the Iraq campaign, originally estimated at $60-95 billion, has multiplied. Three million Americans have lost jobs since the president took office, and the budget deficit is deeply in the red.
Still, Bush has proved an elusive target for Democrats. Substantive policy differences and rhetorical jousts with the White House are lost in a sea of platitudes, cliches and Bush malapropisms. Discordant by nature, Democrats have yet to unite as a solid voting bloc on Iraq. The president has critics within Republican ranks, but by cajoling and appeasing his detractors, the Republican congressional leadership has kept the party in line with the administration.
Since July, Congress has handed Bush a handful of minor defeats on issues unrelated to Iraq, demonstrating an increased willingness to break with the White House. The president’s recent words have failed to bolster his standing in Congress or among voters. An ABC News-Washington Post poll taken after the Sept. 7 address revealed that 61 percent of Americans opposed the $87 billion assistance package, while another poll showed 51 percent opposed Bush’s handling of Iraq. His remarks to the United Nations on Tuesday will probably not change these downward polling trends.
Numerous concerns, many of them bipartisan, have surfaced in Congress. “Weapons of mass destruction” is now a rallying cry for the once pilloried legislators who opposed Bush all along in Iraq. Scores of those who backed the invasion on the basis of the administration’s allegation that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs (a point scarcely mentioned these days) have grown bitter: “We feel we were lied to by the administration,” remarked one hoodwinked Democrat.
The condition of US troops in Iraq is troubling, particularly after the Congressional Budget Office recently issued a report concluding that the army would be unable to sustain present troop levels beyond March 2004.
Former army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki’s forecast that the occupation would require several hundred thousand troops for several years — flippantly dismissed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as “wildly inaccurate” — today seems on the money. Several lawmakers accuse Bush of doublespeak. In the Sept. 7 address, for example, he said troop levels were adequate, yet a sentence later called for additional international forces.
A prospective international role in Iraq is being debated in Washington and elsewhere. Many see occupation under United Nations auspices as far preferable to an American occupation. In addressing both Americans and the United Nations on Tuesday, Bush did call for an expanded UN role in Iraq. Yet he made it clear that management of the country would remain under US control — to date an unworkable formula. “We must assure ourselves that the administration is willing to give more than lip service to enlisting the support of the international community,” noted Democratic Sen. Carl Levin.
Most challenging for Bush will be bearing the costs of the Iraq campaign. This year’s budget deficit will reach record levels of $500-600 billion.
Democrats heap scorn on Bush for slashing domestic programs while providing tax cuts for the rich. Budget hawks, including those in Bush’s own party who were never crazy about Iraq, are also rankled: “I have 500 billion reasons why it will be met with more skepticism,” Republican Congressman Mike Pence said of the Bush request.
Overall US expenditures in Iraq will depend on the duration of the campaign. Much to the chagrin of Congress, no blueprint has been proffered explaining how long it will take for the US to provide security, establish democracy and leave Iraq. Democratic senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd are likely to tack amendments onto Bush’s request that would stipulate increased accountability and the formulation of an exit strategy. This doesn’t frighten Bush’s allies in Congress. “If the Democrats want reports, we’ll give them reports,” noted one Republican Hill staffer, highlighting the Democrats’ inability to offer effective opposition.
Democrats have occasionally scored points when countering the administration’s legislation, usually with assistance from key Republicans. For example, victory was achieved in fighting Bush’s ill-timed attempt to limit medical coverage to disabled veterans. But successful political thrusts are often easily checked by Bush’s parries. The specter of offering a weak message has haunted Democrats since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, giving an otherwise vulnerable Bush room to maneuver in Congress. That’s why Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, an outsider with an original message based largely on opposition to the Iraqi adventure, has made headway in his campaign. It also explains the appeal of retired Gen. Wesley Clark.
In a Sept. 22 hearing on the Hill, the US civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, sought to rally support for the administration’s policies by asking Congress to recall Lebanon in the 1980s.
He needn’t have worried; many remembered Lebanon well, including the bombings of the US Embassy and Marine barracks, the speedy American exit and the ensuing sectarian carnage. Bremer’s statement was hardly reassuring given recent news from Iraq.
But despite criticism in Congress from the left, right and center, no coalitions have emerged to seriously threaten Bush’s requested aid package or drastically alter Iraq policy. Words alone pose no immediate danger.
— David T. Dumke serves as principal of the MidAmr Group, which works to improve US relations with the Arab world. An adviser to several members of the US House of Representatives, he was former legislative director to Representative John D. Dingell (D-Michigan).
