[Peace-discuss] USG plans for Iraq and Iran

[C. G. Estabrook]

Amidst much talk about what the the USG hasn't done (notably the 
Levin-Reed amendment), we should note what they actually have said:


[1] SENATE: CORNYN AMENDMENT - ENDLESS WAR IN IRAQ

On July 17 the Senate passed the Cornyn Amendment.  It is a "sense of 
the Senate" resolution that Iraq not become "a failed state and a safe 
haven for terrorists." Introduced by Republican John Cornyn (R-TX), the 
Amendment was immediately given a strong endorsement by Sen. Carl Levin 
and was supported by all leading Democrats (Clinton, Obama et al.). The 
final vote was 94-3, with only Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, and Russ 
Feingold voting "no."

The much-touted Levin-Reed "withdrawal" amendment, which failed the next 
day, said the administration shall begin a "reduction of the number of 
Armed Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act and shall complete the reduction and 
transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces [sic] in Iraq by 
not later than April 1, 2008." But it also listed as one of the 
continuing missions even after that date, "Engaging in actions to 
disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq."

Since the administration says that all its actions in Iraq are against 
terrorists, such actions are supported by the Cornyn Amendment and 
included in the exceptions of the so-called withdrawal amendments, like 
Levin-Reed.

Meanwhile, there has been talk of a vote to "deauthorize" the war 
(including by Byrd and Clinton). Of course all the original rationales 
for the war have evaporated, so rescinding the original authorization 
might make sense.  The Cornyn Amendment reauthorizes the war under a new 
rationale -- preventing Iraq from becoming "a safe haven for 
terrorists." And the Democrats have signed on.

Furthermore, if Iraq "must not become a failed state," U.S. troops must 
stay in Iraq until it is stable and can defend itself -- a prescription 
for indefinite occupation, endorsed overwhelmingly by the Senate.


[2] ADMINISTRATION: LETTER TO CHMN. LEVIN - VETOES ON IRAQ *AND IRAN*

On July 10 the administration sent a long and little-noticed letter to 
Senator Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 
The letter begins with a threat to veto any changes to the military 
tribunals and the MCA (especially "habeas corpus provisions"), "which 
passed with a bipartisan majority last fall." It goes on to say that 
Bush will veto any and all measures put forth by Congressional Democrats 
limiting the Iraq War.  It also says that the White House will veto any 
measure that would tie its hands on *Iran* -- including on military 
action inside that country.

The Democrats are comfortably aware that they can affect the war 
positively only with a veto-proof majority.  And they have forsworn (as 
Durbin did yesterday) the negative route of simply not voting funding. 
Unless they do that, they can proclaim that they want to end the war (as 
Durbin did) without having to do it.

The Iran section of the letter says the White House will veto any 
Congressional effort to either "direct or prohibit" any military, 
intelligence or diplomatic action regarding Iran. (They figure they've 
got the money, especially for naval and air strikes.)

Here's what the administration is ruling out for Iraq:

	"The Administration strongly opposes any provision that sets an 
arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops without 
regard to the conditions on the ground or the recommendations of 
commanders. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would not bring peace to 
the region or make our people safe at home. Withdrawal could embolden 
our enemies and confirm their belief that America will not stand behind 
its commitments. Setting a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting 
a date for failure and could lead to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism 
that could be used to attack America and freedom-loving people around 
the world. It is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq that could spread 
across the region. In addition to infringing on the President's 
constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, the provision would 
require a precipitous withdrawal of troops that itself could increase 
the probability that American troops would one day have to return to 
Iraq -- to confront an even more dangerous enemy. If the President were 
presented a bill that includes such provisions, he would veto the bill."

And then there's this on Iran:

	"The Administration strongly opposes amendments to the bill that to 
restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively with the 
threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including 
Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes 
that provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international 
negotiations, covert action, or the use of the armed forces are 
inconsistent with the Constitution's commitment exclusively to the 
presidency of the executive power, the function of Commander-in-Chief, 
and the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign policy. If the bill 
were presented to the President with provisions that would prevent the 
President from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations 
from threats posed by Iran, the President's senior advisers would 
recommend he veto the bill."

--CGE