9-14-07, 9:24 am

The debate over the Iraq war is heating up again. This past week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker delivered what most observers described as unsatisfying and even 'dodgy,' to quote one military instructor at the Naval War College, reports to Congress on the situation in Iraq. Their controversial testimony was followed Thursday evening by a TV address by President Bush. In his address, aside from linking the Iraq war to 9/11 and talking about the consequences of failure, Bush essentially made two new points: 1) in his mind withdrawing troops is tied to success and 2) he wants to impose a long-term US military occupation on Iraq.

It's pretty clear that Bush's sales pitch was aimed mainly at Republicans who are ready to jump ship. But it was also a signal that Bush is desperate to avoid ending the war on terms that will allow him to be viewed as having lost a war.

But even further, the speech was meant to show that the most aggressive and dangerous elements in our ruling class – Bush being their spokesperson – are not giving up yet. Bush outlined a long-term policy for the Middle East. He wants a military confrontation with the countries they have labeled as enemies, specifically Iran, and as Bush put it in the speech, who will have a bigger chance of controlling huge oil reserves if the US leaves.

In basic terms, Bush made this occupation of Iraq about three things: his personal legacy, the larger Middle Eastern geo-politics, and US control of oil. In other words, Bush asked for patience from Americans who are losing their family members in a war and patience from Iraqis who are suffering through a grave humanitarian crisis so that he can secure interests that have little to do with stated goals for going to war in the first place let alone helping Iraq build a democratic society. More lives have to be lost to save Bush's reputation.


To achieve this, Bush has to obscure how the US occupation is promoting the ongoing instability and conflict in Iraq behind fabrications about success. But he can't declare victory too quickly. He is walking a fine line between promoting a success story and insisting the occupation needs to continue in order to achieve more success. In fact, he seems to be holding Americans hostage to his Iraqi success story. 'The more successful we are,' he warned, 'the more American troops can return home.'

Expressing the widely held grave doubts about the honesty of overblown claims of success, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Petraeus and Ryan during Senate hearings that 'I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.' Most observers believe that, along with a deep humanitarian crisis already ongoing in Iraq and the political quagmire, the White House's insistence that violence in Iraq is under control because it has returned to pre-surge levels is no great success.

In his response to Bush's Thursday national address, Sen. Jack Reed said, 'Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the president speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the president failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it.'

'His plan does not amount to real change,' Reed continued. Reed said that Iraqis have to take charge of their own political future. Reed questioned the soundness of dumping more money into an 'indefinite occupation.'

Reed announced the Democrats' goal. 'We have put forward a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops,' he said.

Sen. Barack Obama concurred in an interview on CNN. 'This is not a significant withdrawal of troops.' Obama added that the surge was meant to create space for political reconciliation. 'On the president's own terms,' Obama said, 'we have not seen the kind of success the surge promised to deliver.'

Obama argued that sectarian conflict cannot be resolved with an indefinite presence of US troops. He also rejected Bush's hint that he'd like an extended occupation of Iraq. 'I think that is unacceptable. And the American people think that it is unacceptable,' he stated.

'We need to bring this war to an end now. We need to start bringing our troops home now,' he added. Obama urged finding political solutions rather than hiding or ignoring serious sectarian divisions, extensive regional diplomatic efforts, and addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

Sen. Joe Biden was more blunt in an interview on MSNBC after the speech. 'The idea they're telling us that Anbar is all squared away and Fallujah and Ramadi and all these places are in good shape. It's bizarre.' Biden described Bush's effort to postpone ending the war until after he leaves office as 'shameful.'

Presidential hopeful John Edwards added his thoughts on CNN's Larry King Live. 'I think what happened in the election of November 2006,' Edwards pointed out, ' is the American people gave Congress a mandate. And that mandate was a mandate of change. They didn't like what was happening in Iraq. They wanted to see a change of course in Iraq. And they expect the Congress to stand their ground against this president.' Edwards concluded that Congress should not send a supplemental spending bill to Bush without a timetable for bringing the troops home.

All of the discussion over the past couple of weeks about the lack of progress or the continuing sectarian conflict do not fully illuminate the real issue at the heart of Iraq's problems. Only one report of the many produced by government agencies, the White House, the intelligence community, etc. over the last few weeks actually cut to the chase. That was the independent Jones Commission report.

That Commission, which Bush cited in his speech by the way, concluded that ending the occupation of Iraq was essential to any hope for Iraq's political progress. The report pointed out that internal conflict will continue in Iraq as long as the US presence is viewed as permanent. The Commission pointed to the British troop drawdown as an example of what the US should do: turn over security operations to Iraq, shift control of provincial governments to Iraqis, and change the military mission and reduce the US 'footprint.'

Congress will re-open debate on the war next week as it begins to discuss the latest White House request for supplemental funds. Basically, there are some options Congress has at its disposal to force a change in policy.

It can pass a number of bipartisan measures that will mandate higher levels of troop withdrawals, re-state its refusal to allow permanent military bases in Iraq, order a redefinition of the US military mission from combat to training and redeployment.

Another measure Congress can put forward is to reintroduce a supplemental spending bill that legislates a timetable for withdrawal. It can do this by simply adding timetable language to the supplemental and hope for additional Republican votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate and the likely presidential veto.

Or congressional leaders can take a firmer stand by stalling the supplemental in committee until the White House and/or Republican members agree to provisions that strengthen the timeline language: faster force reductions, deadlines for ending the occupation, using funds only for force redeployment, and the like.

It isn't entirely clear at this moment what Congress will do, but whatever it is, Bush can no longer have a free hand. And with his admission what his true aims are – saving his reputation and forcing a long-term occupation – Congress is going to have to make real progress toward bringing this war to an end and the troops home soon.

--Reach Joel Wendland at

| | |