Iraq and Region Update for May 16, 2008
Welcome to FCNL's Biweekly Iraq and Region Update for May 16, 2008
This update includes reports on . . .
I. In Congress
Republican “Presents” Give an Unexpected Twist to War Funding Bill
It was the best Quaker war funding bill ever: a war funding bill with restrictions on funding—and no funding. That was the surprise result of House action Thursday on the $163 billion supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The House stripped out the war funding from the war funding bill when 147 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the funding, 85 Democrats and 56 Republicans voted for it, and—the big surprise—132 Republicans voted “present,” adding to neither the nays nor the yeas. That made the tally 149 to 141 against the war funding.
Two more votes followed on the bill, which was divided into three amendments to allow members to vote separately on the war funding, a collection of Iraq policy measures, and funding for domestic and veterans’ programs.
The second amendment, adopted 227-196 with 8 Republicans voting in favor, set a December 31, 2009 goal for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, reiterated the ban on permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, required congressional approval of a binding security guarantee to Iraq, and limited U.S. funding for reconstruction in Iraq to the amount matched dollar-for-dollar by the Iraqi government. It also included an antitorture provision, limiting interrogation techniques to those acceptable under international law included in the Army Field Manual.
The third amendment, passed 256 to 166 with 32 Republicans voting yes, expanded veterans’ education benefits, extended unemployment benefits, and suspended regulatory changes to Medicaid that would have reduced federal subsidies to the states.
Overall, the votes represent a modest growth in opposition to the war. The 149 no votes on funding were 8 more than on previous occasions. Eight Republicans joined in support of the war policy provisions.
Why Did They Do It?
The decision of a block of supporters of the war to vote “present” on the first funding amendment took everyone by surprise. But the effort to use the war funding bill to gain partisan advantage was no surprise. Both Republicans and Democrats have clearly had this uppermost in their thinking as action on the bill approached.
The Democratic leadership structured the war funding bill as three separate amendments to allow antiwar Democrats to vote against more funds without actually cutting off funding. The leadership also chose to combine $102 billion in supplemental funds for fiscal year 2008 with an administration request for some $60 billion for fiscal year 2009 to avoid the need to vote on war funding again before the November elections.
The Republican “present” vote may have been intended to focus blame on Democrats for failing to provide funding, or to protest the unusual procedure the Democrats followed by bringing the war funding bill to the House floor without a prior hearing in the Appropriations Committee. Whatever the rationale, the driving force for them as well as for Democrats was partisan competition.
What Happens Next?
The legislative action now moves to the Senate, where the Senate Appropriations Committee was marking up its version of the war funding bill while the whole House was voting on its own. Ironically, the failure of the House to approve war funds Thursday may actually mean that the funding will be approved sooner than it would have been without the surprise vote.
The Senate will almost certainly approve the full amount of war funding and Senate and House conferees will then negotiate a final bill. In light of the House vote Thursday, the conferees are more likely to strip out provisions—on troop withdrawal or domestic spending—that would trigger a presidential veto and force Congress to focus more time and attention on the war funding issue.
Iran Issue Surfaces in the Dead of the Night
While the spotlight was on the war funding bill on the House floor, in a late-night session the House Armed Services Committee took a little noticed action on Iran that may have more implications for the future of the United States in Iraq and the Middle East than the funding bill. The committee approved by voice vote an amendment to the 2009 military authorization bill that urged the Department of Defense to be prepared to respond to “the full range of contingencies that could occur in the Middle East” and required the Pentagon to provide Congress with its assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities “and a summary of assessments of other key nations, such as Israel and France.” every six months.
A more belligerent amendment offered first by Rep. Trent Franks (AZ) would have urged the Department of Defense to “develop and maintain viable military options… to prevent… Iran from successfully developing or deploying a nuclear weapons capability.” Rep. Silvestre Reyes (TX) then offered a substitute amendment with the softer language to be prepared for the “full range of contingencies… in the Middle East.” Finally, ranking committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA) proposed adding the language from Franks’ original amendment requiring reports on Iranian nuclear capabilities as an amendment to Reyes’s substitute amendment. The result was bipartisan approval by voice vote of an amendment implying support for military options against Iran.
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the Iran amendment as President Bush addressed the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem and compared those advocating talks with Iran or Hamas to those who wanted to appease Adolph Hitler. (The president may not have been informed of the fact that 64% of the Israeli public supports talks with Hamas.) The president’s offensive against talks with Iran and the committee’s action are strong reminders that the crucial policy debate affecting the U.S. course in Iraq and the wider Middle East is likely to be the debate on how to approach Iran and conservative Islamic groups in the region.
II. Annapolis Peace Process Watch
President Bush’s visit to Jerusalem to mark Israel’s 60th anniversary left little hope for progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The president mentioned Palestinians only once in his main anniversary speech and his schedule did not include a meeting in Ramallah with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (though he is expected to see Abbas in Egypt before returning to the United States). U.S. and Israeli sources indicated prior to the trip that the president would not be involved in negotiations. Even worse, the president’s remarks comparing negotiating with Hamas or Iran to negotiating with Hitler (see above) showed no willingness to include major players deemed to be adversaries in any peace process.
In addition to the absence of a strong U.S. push for progress in talks, both Israeli and Palestinian leaders are weaker than they were six months ago at the Annapolis peace conference. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert faces possible indictment on bribery charges; if indicted, he has said he will resign. President Abbas has been weakened by Israel’s failure to stop building settlements and remove major roadblocks in the West Bank, both steps expected under the Annapolis process.
The weakened Israeli and Palestinian leaders face rising violence between Israel and Hamas. Israeli attacks have continued in Gaza, and this week a Hamas rocket attack injured 80 Israelis at a shopping mall in Ashkelon, prompting new talk of a large-scale Israeli attack in Gaza. Egypt continues its efforts to mediate an Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, but the United States shows only opposition to a ceasefire with Hamas, instead of the support necessary to its success.
III. Keep on Lobbying
If you haven’t responded to FCNL’s legislative action message sent earlier today, click here to thank your representative if he or she was one of the 149 who voted yesterday against more funding for the Iraq war or to urge a no vote on funding the next time around if he or she voted yes or “present” this time.
IV. Articles, Documents, and Reports
“The Iraq War: Key Trends and Developments” Notes Lack of Policy Direction This new publication by Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic & International Studies provides valuable statistics and charts tracing developments in Iraq. The study generally avoids policy judgments but observes that there has been “no real picture of the way ahead from the Administration since early 2007.”
“The Sadrists of Basra and the Far South of Iraq” Sees Constructive Role for Sadr Supporters if U.S. Adopts Inclusive Policy A paper by Reidar Visser of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs argues that supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtda as-Sadr can plan a constructive role in Iraq if the United States encourages their participation in local elections scheduled for the fall. “There will be no genuine national reconciliation” without the Sadrists, the study says, because their support for a strong central government in Iraq “is a necessary ingredient in any grand compromise that can appeal to real Sunni representatives.”