InTheNews.co.uk
Breaking News:
Your source for news

World News Story

 20 July 2008 08:07 BST

US – the Iraq debate

Tuesday, 11 Dec 2007 17:39
A green or red light for US troops in Iraq?

In Focus 

Maintaining domestic political support for coalition forces' efforts in Iraq has proved almost as big a challenge for US leaders as the struggle for security itself.

To read an analysis of the security situation in Iraq itself, click here.

Defeat in the midterms

2006's midterm elections were dominated by the issue of the 'war in Iraq'. The debate was not about whether to support US troops serving in the country, but rather about whether they should continue to fight or cut and run from the deteriorating situation there.

Faced with rising levels of sectarian violence overlapping on top of the existing insurgency, many politicians began to argue the best way forward might be to get out. The Democrat party made a big issue of its opposition to the war and, as the election results showed, voters made their agreement clear. By November 7th they had had enough, sending a "humbling" message to Mr Bush's administration.

Mr Bush faced growing rumours from Capitol Hill that the Democrats planned to use their new purse-string powers to cut funding from the Iraq mission.

Sticking to his guns

Having largely ignored the contents of an Iraq Study Group report led by former secretary of state James Baker, the president outlined his plans to send an additional 20,000 personnel to Iraq.

His arguments that exiting Iraq would create a "safe haven" for terrorists were rejected by Congress. After an unseemly delay caused by Democrat divisions, the House of Representatives eventually expressed "disapproval" with their commander-in-chief through a non-binding resolution.

In spite of the move, Mr Bush chose to continue on regardless. Senate majority leader Harry Reid accused the president of being in a "state of denial" over Iraq. As US forces constructed a concrete wall to separate Sunnis and Shia Muslims in Baghdad, Iraq continued to divide Americans.

Constitutional showdown

Matters finally came to a head on May 2nd, when Mr Bush vetoed a Congressional bill making additional military funding conditional on a timetable for troop withdrawals.

The use of his presidential prerogative created a constitutional impasse as, with the Senate split down the middle, an over-riding two-thirds majority was unthinkable.

Compromise was needed, for funding for the military had to be agreed on some grounds. In the event the Democrats were forced to drop their mandatory withdrawal clause - but they claimed victory by securing an additional £17 billion of funding for domestic use which Mr Bush had not requested.

On the face of it, it seemed the White House had won this particular battle of wills.

Benchmarks for progress

Speaking on May 24th, one day after the agreement was reached, Mr Bush made a key concession: that clear progress on the ground was needed to justify the continuing presence of US troops in Iraq.

He urged Americans to wait until September for the final wave of reinforcements in his 'troop surge', which arrived in mid-June, to take full effect.

"These benchmarks provide both the Iraqi government and the American people with a clear roadmap for the way forward," Mr Bush said.

The White House report warned that a withdrawal of troops would lead to a "humanitarian catastrophe", but a day later the House of Representatives yet again voted in favour of a complete withdrawal by April 1st next year.

A surge success?

The much-anticipated Friday September 14th report on the troop surge did not create the landmark changes many expected.

The White House admitted that it was failing on nine of the 18 benchmark measures outlined in the spring, but the promise of 5,700 troops home by Christmas appeared to quell the critics.

Perhaps this was why the Democrats failed in their next attempt to sway Congress on the issue on September 20th. The opposition party failed to get the 60 Senate votes it needed to further a proposed bill giving troops as much time at home as they spend deployed.

Update – November 2007

November saw yet another Democrat attempt to force US troops out of Iraq. Ms Pelosi managed to steer the Iraq war bill, which sought to tie $50 billion (£24 billion) of funding to a guaranteed exit of all American troops from the country by December 15th, through the House of Representatives.

The Senate thwarted her plans, however, on November 16th by failing to give her bill the 60 votes it needed to pass. The threatened presidential veto was not required on this occasion.

It was another low point for the Democrats, who appear to have lost capital with war-weary Republicans following the apparent success of the troop surge.

Despite last November's midterm defeat, Mr Bush remains in control of his Iraq policy – for now.

Alex StevensonEnd of story


Recent relevant news 

More world news... 

Also In The News 

© 2008 Advertise | Privacy | Terms of Use