[Peace-discuss] Feckless democrats, again
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Sun Mar 25 21:29:33 CDT 2007
[Except for the optimism of the final paragraph, this seems about right
to me. It comes from the World Socialist Web Site, the Trotskyist group
associated with the Socialist Equality Party. --CGE]
Democrats pass “anti-war” bill that
funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
By Barry Grey
24 March 2007
After weeks of public posturing and behind-the-scenes maneuvering,
Democrats in the House of Representatives secured passage Friday of an
emergency spending bill that grants the Bush administration’s request
for over $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. In what amounts to a colossal political fraud, they
presented their “Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq
Accountability Act” as a measure to force an end to the war in Iraq by
September 1, 2008.
It does nothing of the kind. Even if a similar Democratic measure were
to be passed in the Senate—and it will not—and the final bill were to
survive a presidential veto—a political impossibility—the resulting law
would do nothing to halt the current military escalation in both Iraq
and Afghanistan, and would allow upwards of 75,000 US troops to remain
in Iraq indefinitely.
The bill is a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as
opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation.
The vote to authorize war funding flies in the face of the will of the
electorate, which expressed its desire to end the war and its opposition
to the policies of the Bush administration in last November’s
congressional elections, overturning Republican control in both houses
of Congress.
In remarks following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went out of
her way to declare her party’s support for the US military and the
so-called “war on terror,” calling the bill “a giant step to end the war
and responsibly redeploy our troops out of Iraq” so they could
concentrate on Afghanistan, “where the war on terrorism is.”
The Bush administration has denounced the bill and promised to veto it,
in line with the White House’s blanket opposition to any conditions, no
matter how toothless, being placed on its war-making powers.
The bill passed by the narrowest possible margin, with 218 votes in
favor and 212 opposed. Only two Republicans voted for the bill and 14
Democrats voted against it.
The conditions attached to US troop deployments by the bill are
themselves so conditional as to be meaningless. Under the measure, Bush
would be obliged to certify to Congress on July 1, 2007 and again on
October 1, 2007 that the Iraqi government has made progress in meeting
certain benchmarks, such as containing sectarian violence, reining in
militias, and reforming the constitution. Should Bush fail to go through
the motions of making such a certification, withdrawal of US combat
troops would begin. Even if the government certified progress, US combat
troops would be withdrawn by September 1, 2008.
But this “final deadline” could be extended if the administration
obtained approval from Congress. In any event, less than half of the
140,000 US troops currently in Iraq are designated as combat forces,
meaning that 75,000 or more troops would remain after the “deadline” to
conduct counterinsurgency operations, train Iraqi forces, police borders
and protect US assets.
As New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the 2008
Democratic presidential nomination, made clear in an interview with the
New York Times last week, if elected she would keep a large force of
American troops in Iraq indefinitely to secure “remaining vital national
security interests” there. She elaborated on these “national security
interests” by noting that Iraq is “right in the heart of the oil region.”
Similarly, the House Democrats’ bill upholds the war aims of US
imperialism by listing as one of the benchmarks the passage of an oil
law that will open up Iraq’s vast reserves to exploitation by US energy
conglomerates.
The bill also requires the Pentagon to observe standards for training,
equipping and resting troops before their deployment and limits the
duration of Army tours of duty to 365 days. With the military already
stretched to the limit, these provisions could actually create obstacles
to the further escalation of the war under Bush’s so-called troop
“surge” in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Consequently, the bill allows
Bush to waive these requirements in the name of “national security,”
giving him a free hand to send as many additional troops as he desires.
In the weeks leading up to Friday’s vote on the floor of the House, the
White House and congressional Republicans continually called the
Democrats’ bluff, exposing their antiwar pretenses by challenging them
to cut off war funding. This culminated last week in the passage, with
overwhelming Democratic support, of a Republican-sponsored nonbinding
Senate resolution vowing to never cut funds for “troops in the field.”
For their part, Pelsoi and the rest of the Democratic leadership
continually tacked to the right, readjusting their war spending bill to
placate Blue Dog Democrats and other war supporters within the
Democratic caucus by further watering down its nominal restrictions on
Bush’s war powers. They secured the support of the party’s right wing by
dropping language that would have required Bush to obtain congressional
support before launching an attack on Iran.
They loaded the bill with allocations for special projects targeted to
win over specific congressmen. Thus the final result includes $25
million for spinach farmers in California, $75 million for peanut
storage in Georgia, $15 million for Louisiana rice fields and $120
million for shrimp fishermen.
As Pelosi and her subordinates scrambled to assemble the necessary 218
votes to secure passage, groups on the so-called liberal wing of the
party declared their support, including the Congressional Black Caucus
and MoveOn.org.
The critical role was played by the misnamed “Out of Iraq Caucus” of
House Democrats. This group of some 70 congressmen has postured as the
most militant critics of the war. Their key leaders, such as Lynn
Woolsey and Maxine Waters, both of California, have been paraded before
antiwar demonstrators by protest organizers as living proof that the
Democratic Party can be pressured to end the war.
Pelosi dealt with them through a combination of threats and inducements.
The house speaker reportedly warned California Rep. Barbara Lee, another
leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that she would be stripped of her post
on the powerful House Appropriations Committee if she sought to block
passage of the bill.
On Thursday, Lee, Woolsey, Waters and company insured passage of the
bill at a closed-door session with Pelosi. The Washington Post reported
on Friday:
“As debate began on the bill yesterday, members of the antiwar caucus
and party leaders held a backroom meeting in which House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi made a final plea to the group, asking it to deliver at least
four votes when the roll is called. The members promised ten.”
Lee, the author of a bill that would supposedly withdraw US troops from
Iraq by the end of 2007, said, “While I cannot betray my conscience, I
cannot stand in the way of passing a measure that puts a concrete end
date on this unnecessary war.”
Waters said the leaders of the caucus had told their members, “We don’t
want them to be in a position of undermining Nancy’s speakership.”
In the debate on the floor of the House, supposedly antiwar liberals
denounced the war, and proceeded to call for a vote to fund it. Typical
were the remarks of Jim McDermott of Washington State, who declared,
“The Iraq war is a fraud... Perpetuating it is a tragedy,” and then
announced he would vote for the war funding measure.
Virtually all of the Democratic speakers wrapped themselves in the flag
and declared their unconditional “support for the troops.” According to
one press report: “In the closing round of the debate, most Democrats
focused on elements of the bill that they said would protect American
troops by requiring better training and longer periods of rest between
deployments.”
Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, who heads the Armed Services Committee,
said the bill would strengthen the US military, which has been strained
by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I’m deeply concerned about the
readiness of our forces,” he said.
The legislative charade mounted by the Democratic Party has nothing to
do with ending the war in Iraq. There are, in fact, no principled
differences between the Democrats and Bush when it comes to the
imperialist aims of the war. Both parties, the Democrats no less than
the Republicans, serve the corporate interests—the oil conglomerates,
the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a
whole—that seek through military violence to establish US control of the
resources and markets of the world.
The differences between those within the political establishment who
favor continued escalation of the war and those who seek to continue the
colonial occupation with reduced US troops are purely tactical. They
have to do with the best means of salvaging the US debacle in Iraq by
killing and brutalizing more Iraqis, in order to secure US control of
the Middle East.
The real political purpose of the Democrats’ bill was indicated in an
interview this week on the “Democracy Now” radio program with Robert
Borosage, a long-time Democratic Party operative and contributing editor
at the Nation magazine. Arguing in support of the war spending bill, he
said, “The question is about, can you create a symbolic vote—because the
president has vowed to veto it if it passes—a symbolic vote that unites
the opponents of the war and shows that there’s a majority in the
Congress now united about a date certain to get the troops out.”
In other words, a measure that will have no effect on the war, but will
promote the fiction that the Democratic Party is in some way a vehicle
for the antiwar sentiments of the people, and thereby keep social
opposition within the bounds of the two-party system.
In this critical task for the American ruling elite, forces like the Out
of Iraq Caucus and their “left” allies in the protest movement play a
crucial role. They serve not to end the war, but to provide a
right-wing, pro-war party with a left-wing, antiwar gloss, the better to
block the emergence of an independent movement of working people against
war, repression and social inequality.
Four-and-a-half months after the election, in which the people expressed
their opposition to the war, the result is the opposite of their wishes.
Tens of thousands more troops are being deployed, the carnage and death
are increasing, and US military spokesmen like Gen. David Petraeus are
speaking of an escalation unlimited in both size and duration.
Ending the catastrophe inflicted by American imperialism on Iraq, and
preventing new wars in Iran and elsewhere, requires a complete political
break with the Democratic Party and the two-party system. It requires
the independent political mobilization of working people, both in the US
and internationally, in a class-conscious socialist movement.
###
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list