In all likelihood, if every leak of the last several weeks is to be believed, the president is going to unveil his “new way forward” in Iraq in a couple of days. Democrats, in Congress and out, aren’t going to like it — the strategy will probably include an escalation of thousands of troops, it will reject even a hint of redeployment or withdrawal, and will extend our commitment to the conflict well into the future.
The question is: what on earth are Democrats going to do about it? Just as importantly, what can they do about it?
Newly elected Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.) almost certainly has the wrong idea. Asked if she could support a troop escalation, Boyda characterized it as a fait accompli for the entire legislative branch of government. Bush, she said, “is the commander in chief…. We don’t get that choice. Congress doesn’t make that decision.”
That, of course, is entirely wrong, but it does touch on a certain uncomfortable reality: the Dems’ options are somewhat limited. The most common proposal — having Congress de-fund the war — is problematic. For one thing, Nancy Pelosi (hardly a war supporter) has said the option is off the table. For another, as Barney Frank explained during an interview with Keith Olbermann on Wednesday, the administration would work around it.
OLBERMANN: Are you fearful that if you were to cut the money off, if you were to actually refuse to bankroll it, as a Congress, that the money would be spent, there’d still be money spent to send them there, without protecting them, or…
FRANK: Well, that’s the problem. It could be spent. The fact is that the Pentagon budget could–other money could be taken from other purposes and spend it. You couldn’t do it just by voting no money. You would have to say–you’d have to pass something that said, None of the [money] that we’re voting can be used for this. But it’s too late for that. We’ve already voted for the defense budget for the year….
He already has hundreds of billions of dollars legally in his possession to spend. So there is, in fact, no way, I think, to cut off the money, unless we were to pass a law and he would veto it. So we are frustrated in that extent.
Needless to say, this is wholly unsatisfying. The nation seems to desperately want Congress to do something, but what?
The WaPo’s E. J. Dionne Jr. had a good column on Friday that noted, among other things, that if Bush wants to “continue or expand the Iraq war, Congress has precious few tools available to stop the commander in chief.” One of the measures under consideration, however, is a reconsideration of the original authorization-of-force resolution from October 2002.
Even Bush’s critics doubt that the broadest measure, cutting off funds for the president’s policies, could be effective or has the votes to pass. Yet Bush’s opponents will be emboldened if he embarks on a surge, especially if it is not linked to what Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, calls “milestones” for political reconciliation that the Iraqi government will have to reach. Levin, whose views are shared by many Democrats, also insists that any surge should be part of an “overall plan of troop reduction” that would begin “within four to six months.”
Given the limited options, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, has suggested to his colleagues that the strongest response to the surge would be a congressional resolution explicitly opposing the step.
Whereas cutting off funds is a “hollow threat,” Biden said in an interview this week, a congressional resolution could have a powerful effect if it drew support from the significant number of Republican senators who are increasingly alienated from Bush’s policies. Biden, who expects to offer his proposal at a meeting of Democratic senators today, argued that an anti-surge resolution might not bind the president but would exert considerable pressure on him to reconsider his approach.
More intriguing, Biden is studying whether Congress might reconsider the original Iraq war resolution, now as out of date as the administration’s prewar claims. The resolution includes references to a “significant chemical and biological weapons capability” that Iraq didn’t have and repeated condemnations of “the current Iraqi regime,” i.e., the Saddam Hussein regime that fell long ago. In effect, the resolution authorizes a war on an enemy who no longer exists and for purposes that are no longer relevant.
What kind of options do you think the Dems should consider? What should Congress’ role be in stopping a president bent on a disastrous military policy?