WASHINGTON, 12 January 2007 — Democratic lawmakers yesterday attacked President George W. Bush’s new plan to send more US troops to Iraq and began laying the groundwork for a showdown between the executive and the legislative government branches over war powers.
At a time when polls show most Americans to be sharply critical of US involvement in Iraq, Bush told the nation Wednesday night that he plans to send more than 20,000 additional American troops into combat in Iraq in an attempt to quell the escalating violence.
The president said US withdrawal would doom the future of Iraq, touch off chaos throughout the Middle East, provide a launching pad for attacks against the US and embolden Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
The speech was supposed to be given before Christmas, but kept getting delayed even as its major component — a surge in US forces — was leaked and was attacked by members of both parties and questioned by his own generals.
During his 20-minute speech, the president admitted he had made a mistake by failing to increase troop numbers in Iraq last year. Although he has previously acknowledged making mistakes in Iraq, Bush said yesterday he was wrong both in his decision-making and in his assumptions.
Also yesterday, Bush telephoned Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah to discuss the situation in the Middle East region and latest regional and international developments, the Saudi Press Agency said. “The two leaders also explored ways of strengthening bilateral relations,” it added.
As Bush sends in more US troops to Iraq, he is confronted by opposition to a troop swell by generals on the ground, who have since been replaced, and by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki, who has privately said for weeks that the government is wary of the proposal.
Jeddah residents expressed less-than-optimistic opinions about the move.
“I was surprised at the low number of troops he wants to bring in,” said Saudi student Yahya Al-Saleh. “Twenty-thousand additional troops will not be enough to secure peace in Iraq. It’s thanks to America’s actions in Iraq, and in the region as a whole, that the tensions are so high in the first place.”
By pushing for an escalation, Bush is heading for a showdown with Democrats, the new majority party in Congress, who have indicated they would oppose the president’s plan. Hours before the speech, the president met with and briefed top Democrats and Republicans, the meeting drew scorn from Democrats.
“We had a conversation today that has no impact on what he’s going to say,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters after the meeting. Some Republican lawmakers also broke from the ranks yesterday, saying they are skeptical that a surge in troops can accomplish much.
Muhammad Faris, a Palestinian worker in Jeddah, agrees. “The same way Bush came out on TV in his flight suit to announce victory in Iraq back in 2003, he should come up now and say that he failed and announce defeat,” he said. “His adventure in Iraq will grant America the first military defeat in the new millennium. On the bright side: America doesn’t have the power to invade Syria or Iran.”
For his part, Ahamd Al-Harbi, a college student in Jeddah, said he though the key to Iraq’s stability is shutting down the material support coming into the country from Iran.
Yesterday, the new Democratic-led Congress interrogated Bush Administration officials during Capitol Hill hearings on the Iraq war — the day after his address to the nation — with both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testifying before congressional committees.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., warned that if neither the hearings nor an anti-troop surge resolution change Bush’s stance, he would move forward with a bill in “a matter of days” that would require the president to seek congressional approval for a troop increase.
Congress voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002, and under the constitution, the president is the commander in chief of the nation’s military and has the authority to conduct a war as he wishes. However, Congress controls the purse strings. For example, the Republican-led Congress voted to curtail funding for Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1994, helping to end US operations there.
Kennedy’s bill, however, says that the 2002 authorization no longer applies to the current situation, which Democrats and some Republicans view as a civil war with US troops caught in the crossfire.
Critics say Bush’s stance on the war has isolated him in Washington. “He’s pretty much alone on this,” William Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine who served as defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, told reporters.
Current and former military experts warn that Bush’s plan to send more US troops and Iraqi reinforcements to Baghdad to jointly confront Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias is likely to touch off a more dangerous phase of the war, featuring months of fighting in the streets.
The prospect of a more intense battle in Baghdad could put US military commanders in exactly the sort of tough urban fight that war planners strove to avoid during the spring 2003 invasion of the country.
For some in the capital, the speech and the president’s dilemma brought back haunting memories of another era. “The administration is making the same mistakes now that we made in Vietnam and I’m really sorry about that,” said Jack Valenti, an aide to President Lyndon Johnson. “I learned in Vietnam that when the public loses support for a war, forget about it — it’s all over.”
Bush also rejected the idea of dialogue with Iran and Syria to stabilize Iraq, a key recommendation of the Iraq Study Group. While praising the group for its “thoughtful recommendations,” Bush had tough words for Iran and Syria on Wednesday night, and seemed to promise stepped-up operations against both countries.
In a clear warning to the hard-line government of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bush also said the US will deploy Patriot air defense systems and expand intelligence sharing “to reassure our friends and allies.”
Abdullah Hassan, Saudi businessman in Jeddah, said he thinks Bush’s speech was a plea for financial support from the Arab world in stabilizing Iraq.
“I think this is a way of indirectly asking for money,” said Hassan. “You’d think the leader of the United States would have had the foresight to avoid the mess we see today.”
Musab Hussein, a 34-year-old Saudi, expressed frustration at the American public. “What I cannot understand is why the American people are not stopping him,” he said. “Americans should know that sending 20,000 troops is like digging 20,000 holes in the ground.”
Yehay Sabie, a 35-year-old Saudi writer, agreed. “Is Bush trying to create another Vietnam?” he said. “The American intervention has killed more people than those killed under Saddam’s reign!”
