On Iraq, President Bush Faces Stirrings of a Revolt
The House GOP leader calls antiwar Republicans 'wimps'
President Bush has warned Americans for months that it would be a long, hot summer in Iraq, marked by horrendous bombings, periodic spikes in U.S. and civilian casualties, and severe strains on everyone's patience with the war. It's all coming to pass—but more rapidly than Bush might have expected.
Now, there are growing signs that the public's frustration with the war, already reflected in the ranks of antiwar Democrats, is splintering congressional Republicans away from the president's proclaimed strategy for victory. "A tipping point has been reached," says Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, as more legislators conclude that "you can't justify more people dying."
To the consternation of White House officials, the recent rebels have included several prominent and formerly loyal Republican senators, including Pete Domenici of New Mexico, George Voinovich of Ohio, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Richard Lugar of Indiana and John Warner of Virginia have even drafted legislation that would require Bush to sharply narrow the U.S. mission in Iraq by year's end. They want to shift U.S troops away from policing sectarian violence and to focus instead on targeting terrorists, protecting Iraq's borders, and defending U.S. facilities. And the divisions in the GOP are getting nasty, with House Republican leader John Boehner zinging Republican defectors as "wimps." The question is whether the dissenters will back up their criticism of current policy with votes to actually withdraw U.S. troops.
Voting. The difficulty for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other antiwar Democrats is to find alternatives that will satisfy the many factions on Capitol Hill. One test came on an amendment by Sen. Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat and ex-marine, to give active-duty soldiers more time at home between combat deployments to ease the strains on military families. The proposal would have had the effect of forcing a reduction in troop levels in Iraq. It gained a majority of 56 votes in the Senate but fell short of the 60 needed to cut off debate. A Democratic House resolution calling for a pullout starting within 120 days passed 223 to 201 largely along party lines, with only 4 Republican votes, not enough to override a veto.
The House vote came in defiance of Bush, who just hours earlier insisted at a news conference that he would veto any bill imposing troop withdrawals. He argued that everyone should wait until a September report on the Iraq situation from Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Bush declared that "America is not going to back down" and argued that there is "cause for optimism" in some areas. "I will rely on General Petraeus to give me his recommendations on the appropriate troop levels in Iraq," Bush said. "...To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous," emboldening terrorists and moving the region further toward chaos.
A preliminary administration report on Iraq submitted to Congress July 12 did little to strengthen the president's hand in the looming September showdown with Congress. While it cited "satisfactory" progress by the Iraqi government on some benchmarks, such as providing three brigades for Baghdad security, the report noted that the government has failed to resolve many of the major political obstacles to national reconciliation, as illustrated by the stalemate over a measure for sharing oil revenue.
U.S. intelligence agencies are sticking by their pessimistic assessment of last January that Iraq will be hard pressed to make significant political progress anytime soon. Reducing violence, the assessment suggested, was an essential precondition for moving forward, and that isn't happening fast enough. In congressional testimony July 11, Thomas Fingar, the nation's top intelligence analyst, said violence levels could actually increase. "The struggle among and within Iraqi communities over national identity and the distribution of power has eclipsed attacks by Iraqis against the coalition forces as the greatest impediment to Iraq's future as a peaceful, democratic, and unified state," he said. The statement was at odds with White House claims that the greatest threat in Iraq today is al Qaeda.
Iraqi security forces remain unable to function without extensive U.S. support, except for a few isolated units. Beyond simple fighting skills and questions about their loyalty, Iraqi forces also lack basic support systems, including adequate communications and intelligence capabilities.
Risks. Other aspects of the situation are equally discouraging. "Provision of essential public services remains inadequate," Fingar said. "Oil output is below prewar levels, hours of electrical power available have declined and remain far below demand, and inflationary pressures have grown since last year." Still, intelligence officials continue to warn that rapid U.S. withdrawal could provoke even greater violence in Iraq and across the region.
Back home, the wrangling over a $649 billion defense authorization bill has become the focal point of debate over the Iraq war, which is costing at least $10 billion a month. Various amendments, such as Webb's, were designed as part of a Democratic strategy to force Bush to change course. Several senators argued that Bush's troop "surge" has failed and that the increased commitment has pushed the U.S. military to a breaking point. "More and more Republicans have stopped backing the president and have started looking for ways to work with us," says Joe Biden, the Delaware Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is running for president.
Another impediment to staying the course is the operational constraints on U.S. forces. The military will be unable to sustain the current troop level in Iraq beyond next spring, according to senior Pentagon officials. As of May 2008, they project, the Army will have to start drawing down the number of brigades because there aren't enough troops to replenish fighters in the field. The drawdown may bring the troop level to the presurge plateau of 120,000 or lower, from the current 150,000. The stress on U.S. forces was not helped by another piece of bad news in mid-July: The Army failed to meet its June recruiting goals by about 15 percent in another sign of public disapproval of the war.
With Silla Brush, Anna Mulrine and Kevin Whitelaw
This story appears in the July 23, 2007 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.