Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2008, pages 25-26

Congress Watch

Some Congressional Democrats See Improved Chances of Modifying Course in Iraq

By Shirl McArthur

In their April reports to Congress, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and then-senior U.S. commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus essentially repeated what they had said to Congress last September: Iraq’s armed forces continue to improve; the security situation is better than last year, and political reconciliation is happening, but not as quickly as hoped. But, whereas in September the sense of Congress seemed to be to give President George W. Bush’s administration more time to let the “surge” of 30,000 additional U.S. troops produce results, this time Crocker and Petraeus were met with skepticism and tough questions from Democrats and Republicans alike.

As previously reported in this column, for some time there have been reports that the administration planned a “pause” in troop withdrawals in mid-July when troop levels reach the pre-surge level of 130,000 to 140,000. Petraeus elaborated on this, saying that he plans a 45-day period of “consolidation and evaluation,” followed by an indefinite period of assessment before any additional troop drawdown. This would mean that no significant drawdown could take place before November, at the earliest. Two days after Petraeus’ testimony, Bush announced he was suspending indefinitely troop withdrawals after July. Democrats immediately criticized his decision, with Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL) both complaining that there seemed no end in sight in Iraq.

With the domestic economy an increasing concern and Bush’s popularity level at an all-time low, Democrats believe that their chances of modifying U.S. policy in Iraq are greatly improved. Bush has requested a $108 billion supplemental war-funding bill, with no added domestic spending and no curtailing of his war-making powers. House Democrats plan to ignore Bush’s demand and introduce a $170 billion supplemental bill that will include provisions aimed at changing the conduct of the war and at least beginning a troop withdrawal, plus significant domestic spending. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) has said he will “recommend adding significant funds for infrastructure to create jobs in the short term and promote a growing economy in the long term.”

Administration Continues to Claim No Congressional Approval Needed For Security Agreement With Iraq

Both Crocker and Petraeus also repeated the administration’s contention that it does not intend to submit the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the “strategic framework” or “bilateral security” agreement currently being negotiated with Iraq to Congress for approval. Currently in force with more than 100 nations, SOFAs are basically an administrative agreement relating to legal authorities, immunities and obligations of U.S. forces in the country, and are normally negotiated as an executive agreement, without congressional approval. However, Senate Democrats claim that the SOFA being negotiated with Iraq goes further, allowing U.S. forces to unilaterally initiate military operations and detain Iraqis, and exempting U.S. civilian contractors from prosecution in Iraq. Crocker also said the administration intends that the security agreement will be an executive agreement as well, not requiringing congressional approval. Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats and some Republicans disagree, saying the agreements constitute a defense treaty requiring congressional ratification.

On March 14 Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced H.Con.Res. 319, urging Bush not to enter into such agreements without congressional approval and to begin an immediate deployment of troops from Iraq. Most of the other measures previously described in this magazine have gained co-sponsors. The one having the most support is H.R. 4959, to provide that any long-term security, economic, or political agreement with the government of Iraq “is in the form of a treaty with respect to which the Senate has given its advice and consent.” Introduced in January by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), it has six new co-sponsors, for a total of 57, including DeLauro. S. 2426, “to provide for congressional oversight of U.S. agreements with the Government of Iraq,” introduced in December by Clinton, has gained three co-sponsors and now has 12, including Clinton. H.R. 5128, “disapproving any formal agreement…between the Republic of Iraq and the U.S. unless the agreement is approved through an act of Congress,” introduced in January by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), has gained one co-sponsor, and now has 15 including Lee. H.Res. 1028, “reasserting congressional prerogatives in foreign policy and reaffirming the importance of following constitutional processes,” introduced by Lee in March, has gained three co-sponsors and now has seven, including Lee. H.R. 5626, introduced in March by Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA), “to reassert the constitutional role of Congress in making long-term security commitments,” has gained seven co-sponsors and now has nine, including Delahunt.

Weakening U.S. Economy Puts Pressure on Iraq Reconstruction Funding

With the U.S. economic downturn, domestic pressures are causing some members of Congress from both parties to question funding for Iraq reconstruction. On April 1 Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), with one co-sponsor, introduced S.Res. 494 “expressing the sense of the Senate on the need for Iraq’s neighbors and other international partners to fulfill their pledges to provide reconstruction assistance to Iraq.” The full Senate passed the resolution on May 1. Three measures were introduced urging that any future funding for Iraq reconstruction be in the form of loans: on April 8 Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), with four co-sponsors, introduced S.Res. 506; on April 15 Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), with one co-sponsor, introduced H.Res. 1108; and on April 16 Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL), with 10 co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 1111. Also, on April 17 Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) introduced S. 2880, providing that reconstruction funds for Iraq “may be made available only to the extent that the government of Iraq matches such assistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis.”

Taking a different approach, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), with eight co-sponsors, on April 17 introduced H.Res. 1123 saying the president should not conclude a SOFA or other bilateral agreement with Iraq unless it includes a provision saying that Iraq “agrees to reimburse the U.S. for all costs incurred by the U.S. related to the presence of U.S. armed forces in Iraq after the effective date of the agreement.”

Separately, H.R. 3797, which would require the president to “seek a regional diplomatic plan for the Middle East,” continues to gain support. Introduced by Rep. David Price (D-NC) in October, it has gained four co-sponsors and now has 59, including Price. Similarly, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) again introduced an updated version of his resolution “expressing the need for a more comprehensive diplomatic initiative led by the U.S., the Republic of Iraq, and the international community to ensure the establishment of a cohesive government in Iraq.” The latest version, H.Con.Res. 321, was introduced on April 2 with 11 co-sponsors. Previous versions were H.Con.Res. 274, introduced last December, and H.Con.Res. 288, introduced in February.

In the face of all these attacks on Bush’s policies in Iraq, his congressional supporters apparently decided to counterattack. On March 11, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) introduced H.Con.Res. 315 “supporting the idea that coalition victory in Iraq is possible.” It claims that “the overall progress being made on the ground in Iraq is undeniable” and “recognizes” that the decision to provide a surge of troops “was the correct course of action and has been successful.” Including Wilson, the resolution has 110 co-sponsors—only about half the Republican House members.

“The Malign Influence of Iran” Drawing Congressional Attention

In their April testimony, Petraeus and Crocker took time to echo the administration’s emphasis on the “rising menace of Iran.” Referring to the “malign influence of Iran” in Iraq, Petraeus cited Iran’s influence in Iraq as the foremost problem in the region. According to Crocker, however, Iran’s role in Iraq is limited by the deep Iraqi Arab antipathy toward Persian Iran.

On April 15 a group of House Democrats spoke on the floor of the House to express their concern over the increasing drumbeats of war coming from the White House. Rep. Maxine Waters (CA) said that “the administration is building the volume of inflammatory rhetoric toward Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up to the Iraq war.” Lee said that “no unjust war ever produced a just and lasting peace. It has not worked in Iraq. It will not work in Iran.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (TX) said, “I would question whether the only way to create peace in the Mideast is to again attack another country” there. On April 17 Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) said, “if we want Iran to behave well, we must stop threatening to attack them. Instead our first line of defense must be engagement and aggressive diplomacy.”

On the other hand, at an April 17 House Middle East subcommittee hearing on Iran, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said, “We may have to go right up to the very brink [of war] if we are going to be considered serious and credible when we call an Iranian nuclear weapon ‘unacceptable.’” In addition, after languishing in the Senate Finance Committee for more than a year, S.970, the “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act,” was the subject of an April 8 committee hearing. While the bill, introduced in March 2007 by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), is a milder version of the draconian H.R. 1400 passed by the House last September, both bills consist of “all stick and no carrot.” H.R. 1400 was referred to the Senate Banking Committee, where it still rests. S. 970 now has 72 co-sponsors, including Smith.

Of the other Iran-related bills previously described in the column, only H.Con.Res. 257, introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in November, expressing “strong concern” over Russia’s sales of arms to Iran and Syria, and urging the president to impose sanctions on the Russian entities engaged in such arms sales, has gained co-sponsors. It now has 22, including Ros-Lehtinen.

Israel’s 60th Anniversary Elicits Unctuous Congressional Obsequiousness

In an extraordinary, if not unprecedented, move, beginning on April 3 the House leadership began setting aside time every week for House members to make statements “celebrating” the 60th anniversary of the May 14, 1948, founding of Israel, and many representatives have done so. Most of the statements have emphasized Israel’s accomplishments “as the only true democracy in the Middle East and the U.S.’s closest ally in the region.” However, some, especially those by Reps. Thomas Allen (D-ME), Lois Capps (D-CA), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Lee, Mike Michaud (D-ME) and C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD), have also mentioned the suffering of the Palestinians, support for an independent, viable Palestinian state, and the need for active U.S. involvement in the peace process.

The capstone of the celebration was the introduction on April 4 by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of H.Con.Res. 322 “recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the U.S. and Israel.” Among the six “resolved” clauses is one reaffirming “support for Israel’s right to defend itself against threats to its security and existence.” On April 17 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced the identical S.Res. 522, with all 99 of the other senators as co-sponsors. S.Res. 522 was passed unanimously on April 22, and H.Con.Res. 322, with 280 co-sponsors, was passed by a vote of 417-0 under “suspension of the rules” on April 23.

In the same vein, on April 1 the House passed under “suspension of the rules” H.Res. 185, introduced in February 2007 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), expressing the sense of the House “regarding the creation of refugee populations in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region as a result of human rights violations.” After 14 months of efforts to gain support, the resolution had only 41 co-sponsors when passed. Interestingly, while linking the resolving of issues relating to all refugees, including Jews and Christians, with any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement, the resolution does not make a similar link to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

In addition, H.Res. 939, introduced in January by Ros-Lehtinen “condemning the glorification of terrorism and the continuing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric at the United Nations” continues to gain co-sponsors and now has 35, including Ros-Lehtinen. The resolution’s page and a half of “whereas” clauses nowhere cites anti-Semitic actions or statements; Ros-Lehtinen apparently considers criticizing Israel or supporting the Palestinians to be anti-Semitic.

Carter Meetings with Hamas Leaders Draw Congressional Fire

Ex-President Jimmy Carter’s mid-April meetings with Hamas leaders, including with Khaled Meshal in Damascus, drew criticism from congressional supporters of the failed U.S.-Israeli policy of refusing to deal with Hamas. On April 15 top pro-Israel PAC recipients Reps. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV), along with 53 other House members, wrote to Carter listing 26 Americans allegedly killed in Hamas attacks, and urging him not to “meet with the man who ordered their deaths.” Then on April 16 Kirk and Berkley, with 60 other co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 1110 “condemning Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization responsible for the murders of 26 U.S. citizens.” Also on April 16 Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), with 10 co-sponsors, introduced H.Con.Res. 329 “expressing the sense of Congress that former presidents and high-ranking political figures should refrain from freelance diplomacy against the wishes of the current government and stated U.S. foreign policy.” The same day, Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), with 27 co-sponsors, went so far as to introduce H.R. 5816, which would prohibit funds for the Carter Center in Atlanta.

In other anti-Palestinian actions, Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), with 27 co-sponsors, on April 1 introduced H.Res. 1069 condemning Hamas’ use of television to indoctrinate hatred toward Israel in Palestinian children, and on April 3 Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), with two co-sponsors, introduced S.Res. 499 urging Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to “abrogate the 10 articles in the Fatah Constitution that call for Israel’s destruction and terrorism against Israel, oppose any political solution, and label Zionism as racism.” It is hard to see what purpose these resolutions could serve, except perhaps to appease hard-line Likudnik constituents in an election year. S.Res. 499 is identical to H.Res. 758, introduced last October by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), which after six months has a total of 25 co-sponsors.

Bipartisan Support for Increased Mideast Peace, Cooperation Funding

Last year Congress appropriated $9 billion to support people-to-people coexistence and reconciliation programs in the Middle East. On March 17, Reps. Crowley and Jim Moran (D-VA), with 26 other House members, wrote to foreign aid appropriations subcommittee chair Nita Lowey (D-NY) and ranking member Frank Wolf (R-VA) urging that the amount be increased this year to $11 billion. On April 4, Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE) and John Sununu (R-NH), with 26 other senators, sent an identical letter to Senate foreign aid appropriations subcommittee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-NH).

< Prev		Next >