(Bloomberg) — President George W. Bush’s plan to increase U.S. forces in Iraq presents congressional Democrats with a dilemma: how to oppose what they call an escalation of a misguided conflict and sidestep charges they are undercutting the troops already on the ground.
In a prime-time televised address tonight, Bush will announce a new Iraq strategy that is expected to include adding up to 20,000 troops and a fresh influx of reconstruction funds. Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, have already indicated they will try to block the escalation.
With Congress limited in its ability to influence war policy, Democrats are examining proposals to cap the number of troops or cut off funds for the so-called surge. While they emphasize they won’t place limits on funding for current operations, either approach could leave them open to Republican charges they are endangering troops in Iraq, as Bush spokesman Tony Snow suggested yesterday.
“Do we have a scalpel, as opposed to a blunt instrument, to force the president’s hand?'’ Senator Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said in an interview. “We’re going to have to figure that out as a Congress.'’
Bush’s proposal sets the stage for his first confrontation over Iraq with Democrats who took control of both chambers of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections at least in part by vowing to bring an end to the war. A USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,004 adults conducted Jan. 5-7 found that 61 percent of Americans oppose any increase in the number of troops in Iraq.
Still, the Democrats’ power to change the president’s war policy is limited, said Lawrence Korb, former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan.
Forcing Bush’s `Hand’
“It’s very hard for the Congress, in the midst of a war, to force the commander-in-chief’s hand,'’ said Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based research group that supports many policy initiatives of the Democratic Party.
As a first step, Reid said yesterday the Senate may begin debate next week on a non-binding resolution opposing any troop increase. Some Republican lawmakers, including Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and Representative Heather Wilson of New Mexico, have said they are skeptical of Bush’s proposal.
“We are going to look at all avenues,'’ Reid said. “It would seem to me, if there is a bipartisan resolution saying, `We don’t support this escalation of the war,’ that the president’s going to have to take note of that.'’
Pelosi said the House may consider a similar resolution.
Troop Cap
Meanwhile, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said yesterday that he would introduce legislation requiring congressional approval of any increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the current level of 132,000.
“The American people sent a clear message in November that we must change course in Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops, not escalate their presence,'’ Kennedy, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.
While most Democrats oppose Bush’s surge plan, many are also uncomfortable with using Congress’s control of the purse to force him to abandon it. Bush will forward a request for additional war funds to Congress next month that covers current and future operations.
“Once our troops are on the ground I don’t support blocking funds,'’ said Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota Democrat.
At the White House, Snow warned yesterday of the dangers Democrats faced in opposing Bush’s strategy.
Democrats’ `Choice’
“Democrats are going to have to make a choice here,'’ Snow said. “They’re going to have to decide where they stand in terms of two issues: Number one, do you want Iraq to succeed, and if so, what does that mean? And number two: Do you believe in supporting the troops as you say and how do you express that support?'’
Some Democrats said they were waiting to hear Bush’s speech before deciding how to proceed. Bush will have to “promise to me, satisfy me, that this is a plan that will result in success,'’ Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, said in an interview yesterday.
Democrats are also divided over how far they should go in opposing Bush. Some, like Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, have said U.S. troops should begin leaving Iraq immediately. “There is no chance what the president is going to say is satisfactory,'’ he said.
Timetable for Withdrawal
Other Democrats, such as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan, have called for a timetable for troop withdrawals to show Iraqis that U.S. forces won’t be there indefinitely.
Obama said he is investigating ways Democrats could amend spending bills to restrict money for military operations or attach conditions to spending bills without endangering forces already deployed.
“This is where you might have the showdown at the O.K. Corral,'’ said Jeffrey McCausland, a former National Security Council official who is now director of national security affairs at the law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Washington. “The main power the Democrats have, of course, is the power of the purse.'’
Source: Bloomberg
« squaremouth inc. Launches Health Insurance Comparison Site | Helicopters launch new attacks on al-Qaida suspects in Somalia »