home

A Date Certain For Redeployment From Iraq

On June 19, 2006, Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed introduced a resolution calling for the phased redeployment of US military from Iraq commencing in 2006. Senator Levin said:

Our current open-ended policy is counterproductive and unsustainable. The Administration’s policy of ‘we’ll be there for as long as Iraq needs us’ will result in Iraqis depending on us longer. Three and a half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent. Beginning a phased redeployment this year will add incentives for the Iraqis to make the hard compromises necessary to bring their country together and secure it. They need to do that job themselves and our amendment is one way to prod them to make that commitment and stick to it.

Now, the Democrats do not need to "prod" the President to do anything. They can do it themselves. They have the power. They have no excuses. The question is do the Democrats in Congress actually want to have our troops redeploy from Iraq or not? They can do it if they want. If they believe what they said in in June 2006, then they will.

Of course the way to achieve withdrawal, or the favored euphemism, redeployment, is to defund the continued deployment in Iraq. My preferred approach is to set a date certain for when funding will cease, 9 to 12 months from the date of announcement of said Congressional policy.

But there are other rhetorical and procedural ways to achieve this. Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman and Congressman David Wu describe another:

The real debate on Iraq begins with Congress's consideration of the military budget. The president has requested almost three quarters of a trillion dollars to fund the military through September 30, 2008. More than $150 billion is earmarked for Iraq.

We have already spent $350 billion there, so the president's proposal pushes our Iraqi costs close to the half trillion mark. At the same time, he is demanding a $100 billion cut in health care funding, falling most heavily on poor children, while he maintains his $200 billion annual tax cut, channeled mostly to millionaires.

It is Congress's job to restore fiscal balance first, by placing an overall limit on Iraq war expenditures. Congress should limit this president to spending half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war -- and no more.

. . . In taking this step, Congress wouldn't be initiating a grand constitutional battle over the war powers of the president. It would be exerting its constitutional power of the purse and playing its traditional role as a check on another branch of government, rebalancing runaway programs that threaten to overwhelm our fiscal health and national priorities.

150 billion dollars would fund the war for approxiately 12 months. In essence, it sets a date certain for ending funding for the Iraq Debacle. I do not see any substantive difference from what I have suggested. If this is easier for the Democrats in Congress to swallow, then do it this way. The result is the same.

Ackerman and Wu say:

Limiting all future expenditures in Iraq to $150 billion, tops, can in no way harm our troops in the field. It responsibly carries out the will of the American people: that the president, with professional military advice, should be unwinding this war and planning a prudent departure for friendlier nearby countries or home.

. . . Even the administration concedes that Congress has the constitutional power to cut off funds. The challenge is to use this power creatively -- both protecting the troops and requiring the president to end his war on his watch. The key point is to establish the principle that President Bush is responsible for leading America out of the impasse he created. . . . We have fixed our ceiling at a level which assures that all troops will leave Iraq by inauguration day of 2009.

. . . Our "half-trillion dollar solution" is a choice of the lesser evil. There are no good options left. . . .

This is an interesting rhetorical sleight of hand. If this goes down easier for the Dems, then I am all for it. If the Democrats want to end the war in Iraq, then they will find a way that works to do it.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Is the Public Ahead of the Netroots on Iraq? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It ain't going to happen... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Aaron on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    ...because Congress doesn't have the guts.  Now that the Democrats hold both houses of Congress, it's the old Catch-22, their fear of losing their seats will keep them from taking any real action on Iraq while George W. Bush is in control. Changing the face of the Congress was only half the job.

    As long as George W. Bush sits in the White House, the will of the people means almost nothing.  Until we have a new president, a president of the people, and by the people, and for the people, we will stay stuck in this quagmire, until the day Bush cleans out his desk.  Then and only then will We the People have a small window of opportunity, a chance to make it right.

    The best thing we can do is start pressuring the presidential candidates to come up with solutions, make them start talking about finding solutions to Iraq and even more importantly the larger problems of the Middle East. They must be forced to take a stance so that when we have a new president, whoever that may be, they will have made genuine commitments which we can hold them to, otherwise our failure will continue.

    It's time for the American people to remember who's in charge, it's time for us to use our sovereign power to squeeze these representatives of ours until they actually start doing our bidding once again.  It's time for America to step up to her responsibilities as the leader of the free world, and bring peace and understanding to those places we were once content to bleed of resources, while we allowed the people of those regions to suffer.

    Well folks, those days are over, we can't get away with it anymore, it's time to remember that we have a duty to the people of the Middle East, a responsibility to them for all they have given us.  We owe them, and it's time to start paying our debt.

    What comes from the 2008 election, will define our role in the 21st-century, so we had better start living up to our civic responsibilities.  We wanted to be the preeminent power on the globe, and that's what we are, but it's an awesome responsibility, not for shirkers or the faint of heart.  Democracy is being put to test, time to show our quality.

     It's in our hands ladies and gentlemen, the decision is ours, not just about who you to elect, but what they will do once they sit down in the White House. I wonder if we, the people of the United States of America , have what it takes to lead the world into a better tomorrow.

    All they have given... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    Well folks, those days are over, we can't get away with it anymore, it's time to remember that we have a duty to the people of the Middle East, a responsibility to them for all [that has been taken from them].  We owe them, and it's time to start paying our debt.

    "Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East

    After 70 years of broken Western promises regarding Arab independence, it should not be surprising that the West is viewed with suspicion and hostility by the populations (as opposed to some of the political regimes) of the Middle East.
    ...
    Driven by a desire to keep the vast oil reserves in hands friendly to the United States, a wish to keep out potential rivals (such as the Soviet Union), opposition to neutrality in the cold war, and domestic political considerations, the United States has compiled a record of tragedy in the Middle East. The most recent part of that record, which includes U.S. alliances with Iraq to counter Iran and then with Iran and Syria to counter Iraq, illustrates a theme that has been played in Washington for the last 45 years.
    ...
    How, in the absence of hegemonic U.S. policy, could Americans and their large capitalist economy have achieved energy security and prosperity? The answer is the free market, in which entrepreneurs earn profit by correctly anticipating consumer demand, as well as the uncertain future, and make provisions for both. The belief that government planning is necessary to provide for the people's energy needs is a species of what economist F. A. Hayek calls "the fatal conceit" and a failure to understand the nature of the market's self-regulating, spontaneous order. In other words, political and military noninterventionism in the Middle East would have cost the policy and corporate elites the chance to serve their special interests, but it would have left the people free to pursue their private complementary interests in the market's cooperative and competitive environment.

    To put it bluntly, a power- and privilege-seeking elite has profited at the expense of the people. Classical liberals have long warned that that was the danger inherent in foreign policy.

    If the Democrats want to end the war in Iraq, then they will find a way that works to do it.

    And if they don't try find a way, they have forgotten how fast and how deep and wide the dissaproval of the rethugs grew.

    Defund now. Get the message. Or else... You've seen what can happen to you.

    Well, Saddam was their problem.. (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    Edger needs a lesson (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    You seem to need reminding that 66% of Americans are hopeful that we win in Iraq.

    And if you want to present due bills, how about ours for WWII???

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:46:56 PM EST
    Americans support "winning"?

    Do they disapprove of cancer as well?

    Parent

    Aaron (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    a responsibility to them for all they have given us.  We owe them, and it's time to start paying our debt.

    And exactly what is it they have given us??

    Targets (none / 0) (#4)
    by roy on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    "Fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" is basically a way of making the Iraqi people pay the price for our safety.  And that's generously assuming that it even works.

    Parent
    Oil... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Aaron on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    ...mickey fickey oil!

    Parent
    Gee Aaron. a lot to people have given (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 05:54:57 PM EST
    us oil.

    Texas wildcatters, North slope drillers...

    Can you do better???

    Parent

    Those f*cking ingrates! (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 09:49:42 PM EST
    I have to agree with you, Jim. We gave them tons and tons of primo ordnance and they've yet to pay us one red cent for the favor.

    Parent
    What will happen to Iraq after a withdrawal? (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 03:41:09 PM EST
    I know the Right's vision: Islamic fascists will take over, effectively enslave the citizens, and use the country as a shelter and breeding ground for international terrorists, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan in the years leading up to 9/11.  I'm curious about the Left's.  What course will Iraq follow after US troops are withdrawn?  Is it better, for Iraqis or for Americans, than the course they're on now?

    What will happen if we don't? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 07:40:19 PM EST