There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it’s a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders — the troops — if his demands aren’t met.
If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq.
But this isn’t a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn’t really trying to win the argument on the merits. He’s just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.
What’s at stake right now is the latest Iraq “supplemental.” Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: “Whoops! Whaddya know, we’re running out of money. Give us another $87 billion.”
At one level, this is like the behavior of an irresponsible adolescent who repeatedly runs through his allowance, each time calling his parents to tell them he’s broke and needs extra cash.
What I haven’t seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm’s way without first ensuring that they’ll have the necessary resources.
As long as a G.O.P.-controlled Congress could be counted on to rubber-stamp the administration’s requests, you could say that this wasn’t a real problem, that the administration’s refusal to put Iraq funding in the regular budget was just part of its usual reliance on fiscal smoke and mirrors. But this time Mr. Bush decided to surge additional troops into Iraq after an election in which the public overwhelmingly rejected his war — and then dared Congress to deny him the necessary funds. As I said, it’s an act of hostage-taking.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill Congress will send won’t even set a hard deadline for withdrawal. It will include only an “advisory,” nonbinding date. Yet Mr. Bush plans to veto the bill all the same — and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.
The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said, in his great Cooper Union speech in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”
So how should Congress respond to Mr. Bush’s threats?
Everyone talks about the political risks of confrontation, recalling the backlash when Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995. But there’s a big difference between trying to force a fairly popular president to accept deep cuts in Medicare — which is what the 1995 confrontation was about — and trying to get a deeply unpopular, distrusted president to set some limits on an immensely unpopular war.
Meanwhile, there are big political risks on the other side. If Congress responds to a presidential veto by offering an even weaker bill, voters may well react with disgust, concluding that the whole debate over the war was nothing but political theater.
Anyway, never mind the political calculations. Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty.
The fact is that Mr. Bush’s refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security. Thanks to the demands of the Iraq war, we’re already a superpower without a strategic reserve, unable to respond to crises that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And more and more military experts warn that repeated deployments in Iraq — now extended to 15 months — are breaking the back of our volunteer military.
If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months — 21 months! — Mr. Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.
Paul Krugman is a Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular Times columnist.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times
Never, ever, EVER negotiate with terrorists. If he vetoes, send the bill back without changes or with an earlier more binding deadline. State in the bill that any “signing statements” are null and void.
Fresh, new thinking on Iraq is sadly needed in Washington. After months of jawing on the Iraq Study Group Report, to surge or not to surge, to cut off funding or not, there now surfaces another option that holds promise.
In the simplest terms it plays one of the Bush administration’s favorite programs in reverse. Reciprocal Special Rendition (RSR) is both timely and much less costly than other Iraq options .
Instead of surging more troops and rattling more armor at Iraq, RSR plays the stakes that until now have not been on the table.
It starts with retaining “rendition” contractors, who will reliably do anything for money. The necessary funding can be raised off-budget on the Internet in a matter of hours if not minutes. The contractors let it be know to all opposing Iraqi factions that if they stop the mayhem for a specified period of time they will receive a “special package” from America.
To test RSR, for one week of peace and quiet the Iraqis will receive neocon John Bolton, no questions asked. For two weeks Zalmay Khalilzad, for three weeks Elliott Abrams, and for a full month Philip Zelikow with Al Gonzales thrown in as a bonus.
At the two-month mark the Iraqis can have Richard Perle delivered to a Baghdad street corner of choice.
After four months of domestic calm the Iraqis can host Lewis Scooter Libby (if available) or Doug Feith as an alternate.
After six full months of foregoing domestic violence, the Iraqis will be rewarded with Paul Wolfowitz. At that point American troops make a safe, orderly exit.
At the one-year mark, Donald Rumsfeld pays a surprise visit to Baghdad’s Sadar City neighborhood. Flowers extra.
To mark 18 months of Iraq peace and growing prosperity, Dick Cheney retires to an undisclosed location.
On Jan. 21, 2009, George W. Bush makes an unannounced trip to dedicate his presidential library at the new palatial U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
As Rumsfeld himself might say, in war and politics you play with the chips you have.
Mission Accomplished!
THE COSTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC COMPROMISE
Over the course of the next two years, the great 2006 Democratic victory at the polls (followed by surrender in the most recent Congress) will yield the following:
About 140,000 Iraqis will die from the occupation of Iraq and Iraqi fighters trying to rid their country of foreign occupation;
About ten times as many will continue to be injured and suffer from numerous diseases caused by more than a decade of bombing, sanctions and occupation;
Millions of new refugees will be created, in addition to the four million Iraqi people already displaced internally or forced into exile;
Nearly everything that is left of the Iraqi state or economy will cease to exist altogether;
The environment, if it is not already gone, will be nearly totally destroyed and become highly toxic to all living things;
More than 2,000 US/Coalition forces will die;
Five to ten times as many will suffer horrible physical injuries and hundreds of thousands will suffer from PTSD, drug addiction; poisoning from Depleted Uranium and toxics, unemployment and lack of care upon returning home;
US taxpayers will spend at least$200 billion dollars for all of this, not counting post-occupation costs in Iraq or at home, nor the significant costs of the related occupation of Afghanistan and support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine;
Additional hostilities could very well lead to war with Iran. Both the U.S. and Israel have publicly stated they may use nuclear weapons in pre-emptive attacks on Iran;
The hope for any sort of representative democracy in the U.S. will disappear as the last few progressive Democrats in the U.S. Congress surrender their long-time courageous stands as they cease to vigorously oppose a non-binding resolution that simply means more war, death, misery and poverty for all Iraqis and an increasing proportion of the U.S. population;
Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama will be coronated at the 2008 Democratic Convention and will continue the program as usual, while using slightly different language from the Republicans, collecting millions from the same campaign contributors who own the country and much of the world and want to continue this occupation under the mistaken belief that massive destruction can somehow enhance their control of the world’s resources and labor.
TJ, I hope you’re wrong.
However, if you’re right then our only alternative is the example of the French in the eighteenth century. The French help American again.
The way out is very simple, if we have to make one more show of “support for the troops” (the only real support is getting them out of a pointless war). The Dems should pass the bill with the timetable and double-dog dare the president to veto it. But he should be informed beforehand that this congress will not provide any other version of the bill. They don’t have to act to defund the war; the Pentagon will simply run out of money. And it will be because the president turned down billions. Let the president bring the war to an end with his veto.
I totally agree with Mr. Krugman. When Bush said it was the troops who would suffer the consequences of Congress’ failure to give Bush his no strings appropriation it became abundantly that he was holding the troops hostage in Iraq.
NOT ONE MORE NICKEL! Register Green Party!
Then there’s Senator Levin promising to fully fund Bush’s war.
Was it no accident that Harry Reid appointed him Chairman of the Armed Services Committee so he could hide behind him? After all, at first, Harry Reid supported keeping the war going. So what’s going on here? I agree, Bush is holding our troops hostage, but Congress should tell him sign it or else. I think the Dems want Bush to be holding this war in his hands up to the next election.
Come on, Mr. Krugman - you know better than all of us put together that THERE IS NO IRAQ WAR and THERE NEVER WAS AN IRAQ WAR!!!
The majority of Americans are waking up. We must stop enabling the illegal abuse of non-existent “war powers.” The more we speak the truth - illegal invasion followed by illegal occupation - the less chance these greedy, heartless cowards will last out their reign.
America is not now, nor was it ever, officially, legally, or even metaphorically “at war” with the nation of Iraq. Period.
Dearrow… damn, you made me laugh out loud! Just love his, it’s pure MAFIA, just the language of blackmail and subterfuge Bush & his club love to employ! Yeah. Perfect karma in your strategic initiative!
The Democrats are pussies? What tipped you off, Sherlock?
I find it difficult to imagine how the Iraqis would ever shoot themselves in the financial foot by passing the Hydrocarbon Bill, one of the so-called ‘benchmarks’, because it gives about 75% of their oil away to the Big four oil companies for up to thirty years. Bush won’t sign a supplemental without the Hydrocarbon Bill included as a ‘benchmark’, and the Iraqis will drag their feet signing because it goes against their national interests. Result? Stalemate, and our troops are the ultimate losers. Of course Bush doesn’t care about the troops as long as he gets his bloody oil. If there was ever a reason for impeachment there couldn’t be a better one, but sadly I don’t believe even a small percentage of Americans are even aware of the terms of the Hydrocarbon Bill this administration is trying to cram down the throats of Iraqis. It’ all about oil and always was.
I can only say that the democrats should force Bush’s hand and send him the bill. Right now, we’re stuck as a country, and the only way forward that presents itself quickly is to send this latest appropriations bill to the president. If George Bush decides to veto the bill, then the ball is in his court.
Whatever he decides to do next will be entirely his decision and therefore, his fault. I say fault because there is no “win” situation right now. The people made it very clear that they want the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible this past November. And we all saw what happened to the war suporters in the Republican party. And yet the regime in the White House continues to defy the popular will. Bush is in a corner and very soon he will be standing in that corner hopefully listening to the republicans who will be the ones who will have to deal with the reality of the situation. Bush lost touch with reality some time ago.
I am hopefull that the White House will finally realise that they have no choice but to accept almost all of the language included in the bill. They truly have run out of options other than going completely over the edge and invading Iran or some such other thing to distract us from what is the main issue.
I know I’m hoping for a lot here, and maybe I’ve also lost touch with the reality which is the Bush/Cheney team. But that’s all I have left, hope.
I am curious about something…if the funding were cut off, would Bush then have to bring our guys back home, or might the crazy sob decide to leave them there without support, just to show how stubborn he is?
frank, you’re right. This is an invasion and occupation, not a war. And Congress should send a more stringent bill after Bush’s veto and tell him it will only get worse. Why are those craven Democrats always the ones to blink first? Why are they always reacting instead of acting?
Krugman finally figured it out.
Essentially what Bush is saying is: “Give me everything I want, no strings attached, or the troops get it.”
The Bush administration is trying very hard to continue the pillage of Iraq and the US taxpayer, for the benefit of his corporate cronies, for just as long as he can.
The only solution to end the debacle in Iraq is to impeach both Bush and Cheney.There could not be a better case for “high crimes and misdemeanours”, indeed if Congress fails to Impeach it will be grossly negligent in fulfilling its constitutional duties and may forever remove the provisions for impeachment from the democratic process
Excellent ‘Mission Accomplished’ proposal, dearrow, but I think I’d send Douglas Feith to ‘do his patriotic duty’ before I’d send Scooter Libby. After all, it was Feith’s Office of PNAC Faith-Based Initiatives that helped jigger, filter and reconfigure the intelligence data that Bush used to market his debacle in Iraq.
I would add to your laudable idea the notion of raising the taxes of those civilians who still support Bush’s Iraq War; it’s only fair that the 30 or so percent who continue to have faith in an undefined victory lurking at the bottom of this bucket of blood pay more to find it. A simple one-page form could be sent to taxpayers: “Do you continue to support President Bush’s position on the Iraq War?” Those answering “yes” would have their taxes increased by 50 percent. While I realize this may cause a sudden end to all US operations in Iraq, I think that’s a result we’d just have to bear for the sake of equity.
Similarly, since our troops stationed in Iraq are no longer fighting in any realistic sense for our country, but rather operating as mercenaries to secure the position of the Iraq government and various US-based contractors and oil companies, I think each soldier and Marine should be given the option to leave Iraq should they not agree with Bush’s conduct of the war. That there would likely be barely a squad of combat-ready troops left over there is, again, something we’d have to grimace and swallow in the pursuit of fairness.
Finally, speaking of contractors and oil companies, why not ask these worthy corporations to do their patriotic duty in Iraq — the central front in the war on terror, according to the Bush Administration — and provide their services at cost? Businesses of integrity would surely not want to profit from something as important to national security as Iraq and I would think they’d be glad to do anything they could to make sure America is not attacked again by terrorists — why the next target could be ExxonMobil headquarters, Blackwater’s South Carolina training camp, or Halliburton’s extensive facilities in Texas. That the war would likely end abruptly if such a scenario were enacted is yet another arrow to the heart of every red-blooded American, but a cross that must be borne. However, since it would alleviate the increased war taxes suffered by those few Republicans still supporting Bush’s war, I feel sure they’d readily assent to this plan.
BTW, Mr. Smith, you’re absolutely right — it’s all about the oil and always has been, but don’t tell anyone in Washington — you don’t want to disturb their pretentious posturing over an impossible ‘glorious Middle East victory’ that will solve all of our problems there.
Armybrat, you are also correct: Cut Star Wars, the unreliable V-22 Osprey and the unneeded F-22 Raptor and there would be plenty of money for useless wars in Asia Minor. Of course, then Bush’s family and friends might lose money from their defense contractor investments, but I feel certain they’d be willing to sacrifice a little profit to support our troops in Iraq.
Wait — why are you laughing?