[Peace-discuss] Bush escalation, Democrat blather

[C. G. Estabrook]

When the World Socialist Web Site (a blog associated with the Trotskyist 
Socialist Equality Party) agrees with TIME Magazine (yes, TIME) on an 
account of the politics of war in the US, there's a good chance that 
that account is better than the one offered by most of the corporate 
media and the Republican and Democratic parties.  The WSWS notes that 
"there has been increasing commentary in the media about the 
congressional Democratic leadership being in danger of alienating public 
opinion, which is far more hostile to the continuation of the war than 
anyone in the Senate."

Massimo Calabresi writes in the July 12 edition of TIME that "most 
Americans were being given the impression there is a congressional 
debate over the war, but in reality, both sides [Democrats and 
Republicans] support a continuing long-term US military occupation of 
Iraq."

“Even if the Democrats’ position is not in fact that far from where the 
President claims to be headed, both sides are portraying the gap between 
them as unbridgeable. Which, in turn, leaves the impression that the 
debate is between those who want to escalate the war and those who want 
to withdraw US forces entirely ... If you’re looking for someone who 
will lead a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, you’ll have to go to the 
extreme left or right of the parties. Nobody in the mainstream is 
looking to get out soon.”

WSWS concludes that "There are, of course, intense and bitter conflicts 
over Iraq policy, between the Democrats and Republicans and within both 
parties. These conflicts revolve around two issues: what methods should 
be employed to salvage what can be saved from the wreckage of the Bush 
administration’s reckless policy; and who will pay the political price 
for the debacle. But no significant section of the US political 
establishment, in either party, supports an abandonment of the effort to 
dominate the oil fields of the Middle East and gain a decisive strategic 
advantage over rival capitalist powers like China, Russia and the 
European Union."  --CGE

============================================

	Bush prepares new Iraq escalation
	as congressional Democrats blather on
	By Patrick Martin
	18 July 2007

As Senate Democratic leaders moved Tuesday to stage an all-night session 
devoted to votes on supposedly “anti-war” measures that have no chance 
of passage, the Bush administration has dropped a series of hints that 
it plans to intensify rather than reduce the violence in Iraq.

Bush called in a hand-picked group of right-wing columnists and 
commentators to the White House Friday, telling them to put no stock in 
press reports that the White House was contemplating a change in policy 
on the war. According to a report in National Review Online by Kate 
O’Beirne and Rich Lowry, two of those invited, “Forget the leaks and the 
speculation, President George W. Bush is not looking for a way out of 
the surge and the Iraq war.”

“A confident and determined president made it clear that he is going to 
see the surge through, and will rely on General David Petraeus’s advice 
on how to proceed come September, regardless of the political climate in 
Washington,” they wrote.

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, another invited 
guest, suggested in his column July 17 that further escalation of the 
surge might be in order: “Bush was assertive,” he wrote, “he is 
unshakably committed to stabilizing Iraq. If Gen. David Petraeus comes 
back and says he needs more troops and more time, Bush will scrounge up 
the troops.”

This suggestion was reinforced by the comments of Gen. Peter Pace, the 
outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a visit to 
Baghdad Monday. Pace declared that the surge had produced a “sea change” 
in security conditions in Iraq. According to an Associated Press report, 
“Pace said earlier in Baghdad that the US military is continuing various 
options for Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President 
Bush thinks his ‘surge’ strategy needs a further boost.”

Pace told reporters that the military “must be prepared for whatever 
it’s going to look like two months from now. That way, if we need to 
plus up or come down” in troop numbers, the necessary operational plans 
will be in place.

These comments give the lie to claims by congressional Democratic 
leaders that they are waging an all-out battle that is pushing the 
Republican Party and the Bush administration toward withdrawal from Iraq.

The House of Representatives passed a resolution late Friday, by a 
near-party-line vote of 223 to 205, for a measure to require US combat 
troops to begin coming home within 120 days of passage of the 
legislation, with most to be removed by April 1, 2008. The bill permits 
tens of thousands of US troops to remain in occupation of the country, 
so long as their mission is defined as to combat terrorism, train Iraqi 
soldiers and defend US installations.

All members of the “Out of Iraq” caucus, numbering about 80 Democrats, 
voted for the bill, which would legitimize the open-ended US occupation 
of Iraq, with the exception of congressman and presidential candidate 
Dennis Kucinich. Four Republicans voted for the bill, while nine 
conservative Democrats voted against it.

Both House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 
have already foresworn the only effective legislative measure against 
the war—a cutoff of funding—in favor of resolutions that either will be 
vetoed without possibility of an override, like the House measure, or 
that will not even receive a vote, as in the Senate, where most 
Republicans are committed to filibuster any restriction on the Bush 
administration’s war policy.

Despite claims by Harry Reid that he was stepping up the pressure for a 
withdrawal of US forces in Iraq, the Tuesday all-nighter is merely a 
protest stunt that the Democrats hope will make them appear to oppose 
the war, while allowing the bloodbath to continue, and even escalate 
further.

Only three Senate Republicans have agreed to back the principal 
Democratic amendment to the defense appropriations bill, drafted by Carl 
Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, which mirrors the bill 
passed by the House Friday. With at least one Democrat, “independent” 
Joseph Lieberman, committed to all-out support for the White House on 
the war, at least ten Republicans would have to defect to halt a 
filibuster and compel a vote.

Majority Leader Reid reiterated his intention to keep the legislative 
farce going as long as possible. “We’re going to continue working on 
this until we get a vote on this amendment,” he said. “It’s unfortunate 
that President Bush has proven, beyond any doubt, that he won’t listen 
to the Congress or the American people unless he’s forced to, and that’s 
what this amendment does.”

The Senate is scheduled to vote Wednesday on the Levin-Reed amendment, 
and perhaps later in the week on two others: a bipartisan measure, 
drafted by Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado and Republican Lamar 
Alexander of Tennessee, to adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations as 
official policy; and the proposal offered by two pillars of the 
Republican Senate establishment, John Warner of Virginia and Richard 
Lugar of Indiana, which would require Bush to carry out advance planning 
for a troop withdrawal, but would not mandate the removal of a single 
soldier.

As the charade continues, there has been increasing commentary in the 
media about the congressional Democratic leadership being in danger of 
alienating public opinion, which is far more hostile to the continuation 
of the war than anyone in the Senate.

A commentary in Time magazine, headlined, “The Iraq Debate That Wasn’t,” 
began by noting that most Americans were being given the impression 
there is a congressional debate over the war, but in reality, both sides 
support a continuing long-term US military occupation of Iraq. The 
magazine observed:

“Even if the Democrats’ position is not in fact that far from where the 
President claims to be headed, both sides are portraying the gap between 
them as unbridgeable. Which, in turn, leaves the impression that the 
debate is between those who want to escalate the war and those who want 
to withdraw US forces entirely... If you’re looking for someone who will 
lead a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, you’ll have to go to the extreme 
left or right of the parties. Nobody in the mainstream is looking to get 
out soon.”

There are, of course, intense and bitter conflicts over Iraq policy, 
between the Democrats and Republicans and within both parties. These 
conflicts revolve around two issues: what methods should be employed to 
salvage what can be saved from the wreckage of the Bush administration’s 
reckless policy; and who will pay the political price for the debacle. 
But no significant section of the US political establishment, in either 
party, supports an abandonment of the effort to dominate the oil fields 
of the Middle East and gain a decisive strategic advantage over rival 
capitalist powers like China, Russia and the European Union.

  World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org