Why does this page look this way?
It appears that you are using either an older, classic Web browser or a hand-held device that allows you to view our content but may not work with every feature of our site. If you are using an older browser, please upgrade for the best experience.
Navigation
home > by publication type > daily analysis > No Surprise, Iraq Bill Draws Veto
| Prepared by: |
|---|
Democratic lawmakers urge President Bush to sign the war funding bill just passed by Congress. (AP Images/Dennis Cook)
Almost instantly after their legislative victory linking Iraq war funding to a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops, Democratic lawmakers began looking at alternatives to their bill. The president's veto on Tuesday (NYT) made good on his promise to reject the war-funding bill as “defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender.” Yet public opinion surveys indicate solid public support (Pew) for a troop withdrawal timeline, emboldening congressional Democrats to press the president for a compromise.
So far the congressional Democrats have reflected a public mood that opposes the Iraq war but displays little clarity about how it should end, writes Elizabeth Drew in the New York Review of Books. “They have adopted the position that they aren't trying to end the war but to ‘refocus the mission’ so that American troops will be in less danger,” she writes. The Democrats’ ability to maneuver through the political standoff with President Bush will have repercussions both for the prosecution of the war, and for their party’s political prospects in the 2008 campaign. Democratic presidential aspirants in their first debate on April 26 all expressed eagerness to end the Iraq war, though they differed on the details. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) was the only major candidate who stated at the debate that he supports eventually cutting off funding (WashPost) for the war.
With signs that Republican patience on Iraq is ebbing, lawmakers from both major parties indicated they were in new territory regarding what to do next (SFChron). Congress has challenged presidents on wartime powers before, as this new Backgrounder notes, but rarely with such vitriol. One option for Democrats is to support a two-month supplemental bill (The Hill) while continuing efforts to alter administration policy. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CFR.org that if Congress fails to pass a “clean” supplemental spending bill soon, “I think it is very destructive for the country and increases the problems of the American military substantially.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, warned of an increase in sectarian violence in the event of a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq. In a series of on-the-street interviews after the congressional votes, Iraqis themselves expressed concern about a security vacuum (Reuters) in Iraq following a major departure of U.S. forces.
Bush has stressed that the surge is only partially under way, and says there are indications that it is working to secure Iraqi neighborhoods. CFR Senior Fellow Max Boot is also cautiously optimistic after a recent visit to Iraqi hotspots. Boot is impressed by the new strategy (Weekly Standard), writing that U.S. soldiers are no longer “simply speeding down streets in their armored Humvees hoping not to hit an IED [improvised explosive device].” Reuel Marc Gerecht, also writing in the Weekly Standard, says the U.S. military is “finally waging a counterinsurgency that makes sense: We are focusing our efforts on securing Iraqi lives and property.” But each stage of the U.S. domestic debate is clouded by grim reports from Iraq. American forces recently suffered their worst casualties from a single attack in nearly two years, with nine soldiers (IHT) killed by a suicide bomber in Diyala Province, where U.S. troops are more exposed under the new counterinsurgency strategy.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Browse Content By Region IssuePublication TypeThe Think TankFor The MediaFor Educators About CFR
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
