When a President Owns a War
A lot of folks don't like Bush's plan, but there's risk in trying to change it
'It's a brave new world for George Bush," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer told reporters a day after the president announced he was sending 21,500 more American troops to Iraq. "For the first time, people who have the ability to change course in Iraq are asking hard questions." And yet, for all the recent developments that would have seemed to usher in a pullback from Iraq-from the sweeping Democratic gains of November, to the Iraq Study Group's damning report in December, to poll numbers earlier this month showing public support for more troops hovering around 18 percent-last week's White House announcement delivered exactly the opposite news. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seated next to Schumer at last week's briefing, suggested Capitol Hill might be powerless to stop the president's so-called surge: "I'm not the president, I'm not secretary of state, I'm not secretary of defense." In the short run, Congress cannot run a war.
At the same time, though, Washington's reaction to the president's speech marked an unmistakable turning point in the politics of the war. Stopping short of pursuing Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy's bill-which would withhold funding for a troop increase and give Congress authority to cap troop levels-Senate and House Democratic leadership set to work crafting a nonbinding resolution that opposed a troop increase, expecting a vote as early as this week. In a handful of committee hearings, lawmakers unloaded their anger over the president's troop plan on officials like Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. A growing GOP contingent, meanwhile, expressed opposition to Bush's plan, with Reid saying he'd lined up as many as a dozen Republicans for a resolution opposing what he branded "escalation."
Caution. Even with Republicans in a tough political spot, however, the way forward for Democrats is far from clear. As Hill Democrats worked on a nonbinding resolution, leaders in the House also wrestled with whether to pursue more muscular legislation to withhold funding for prospective troops or to attach serious restrictions on funding for the White House's next defense funding request for Iraq-expected in February or March. "After the commander in chief announces his strategy, it's Congress's responsibility to step back and say, 'Is this the best use of our resources?'" says Rep. Joe Sestak, a Navy vice admiral elected last year. But Democrats, wary of the decades-long political cost of voting to cut off funding for the Vietnam War, are proceeding cautiously. Rep. Bennie Thompson, though a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, spoke for many Democrats in warning that a cut in funds for a prospective deployment "might send the message that we're not supporting the troops." And there are constitutional questions about how far Congress can go in shaping the war policies of the commander in chief. In the weeks ahead, the question of what Democrats are willing-and able-to do to shape the president's Iraq strategy may determine whether Reid is correct in saying that his nonbinding resolution "will be the beginning of the end of the Iraq war."
advertisement
