Welcome to FCNL's biweekly Iraq and Region Update for August 10, 2007.
This update includes a report on the state of play on Iraq as Congress adjourned for the August recess; a suggestion for lobbying; and a selection of key articles, documents, and reports.
I. In Congress
Little to Show in Changes to Iraq Policy
Congress adjourned in the wee hours of August 5 for the month-long August recess with little to show for its work on the Iraq war over the last seven months. Congress did not stand up to President Bush's veto of its efforts in May to link new Iraq war funding to a date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops. Subsequent votes on Iraq-- on withdrawal dates and on troop rest and readiness standards-- have allowed members to symbolically demonstrate their opposition to the administration's policy but have not produced policy change. The result of the final weeks, including the contentious final days in the House, was to postpone any significant legislative action on Iraq until Congress returns after Labor Day.The House voted on one Iraq measure (H.R. 3159), a bill that would require minimum rest periods for troops between deployments to Iraq, but with presidential and other waiver provisions. The House approved the bill 229-194 on August 2, with six Republicans (Castle-DE, Gilchrest-MD, Jones-NC, Paul-TX, Shays-CT, Walsh-NY) joining all but four Democrats.
But Democrats shelved other measures expected to come to the House floor, either as stand-alone bills or as amendments to the military appropriations bill, amidst partisan maneuvering and a strategy dispute among anti-war Democrats. For example:
Defense Appropriations Chair Jack Murtha (PA) was prepared to offer an amendment to the military funding bill setting a start date for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq but without a binding end date. He expected significant Republican support for the amendment, but Democrats from the progressive caucus announced that they would not vote for any Iraq measure that didn't include a date by which U.S. troops would leave Iraq. As a result, Murtha chose not to offer the amendment, which would expose the rifts in the Democratic party over the war.
A measure with strong bipartisan support that would require the president to present a withdrawal plan to Congress promptly, but without any date to implement the plan, ran into even greater opposition and the House leadership decided not to bring it to a vote.
These and other proposals exposed a strategic rift among House Democrats. One side argues that bipartisan compromise measures have the best chance of changing the administration's Iraq policy. Others are against a compromise approach both in principle and because they want to paint Republicans as pro-war and don't want to give them opportunities to vote to distance themselves from the administration.
As a result of these disagreements, the House postponed further Iraq action until the fall. The House passed a $459.6 billion military appropriations bill that did not include any funds for the Iraq war or Iraq-related amendments by a vote of 395-13. Representatives will take up the administration's fiscal 2008 request for $141 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a separate bill in the fall.
But a Few Bright Spots
Despite these House setbacks, Congress does get an A in one major subject for the term, not in one of the hard legislative sciences but in one of the important persuasive humanities. Congressional influence was instrumental in encouraging the administration to launch the first tentative regional diplomatic initiatives to stabilize Iraq, involving Iran and Syria, and to instruct U.S. commanders in Iraq to open talks with insurgent and militia groups. These steps are major reversals of administration polices. Congress now needs to do more to encourage the administration to breath life into these negotiations.Congress also deserves an A for reaffirming on several occasions in this session, including an overwhelming House vote in late July, that the U.S. should not have permanent bases in Iraq and should not seek to control Iraqi oil.
Congress could push the administration into more productive diplomacy by passing the Iraq Study Group Implementation Act (S. 1545/ H.R. 2574), a bipartisan proposal that FCNL has been working hard to advance. Supporters of the bill in the Senate will be making an all-out effort in mid-September to bring the bill to a vote as an amendment to the military authorization bill. (As we reported in our last update, we came close to getting a vote on the bill in July, but the Senate leadership pulled the military authorization bill from the floor until September after an amendment on a binding withdrawal date failed.)
II. Keep on Lobbying
September will be the best opportunity to advance the bipartisan Iraq Study Group Implementation Act, before 2008 electoral politics takes over the congressional agenda.
The action will be in the Senate in mid-September-just as a much-anticipated Iraq report by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker comes out-when supporters will again work for a vote on the bill as an amendment to the military authorization bill. The ISG bill now has 14 Senate cosponsors, seven Republicans and seven Democrats. Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), a very significant Republican addition, is the newest cosponsor; he signed on August 3. Current list of cosponsors.
Senators need to hear from their constituents about the Iraq Study Group now. The most effective thing you can do is to get a group of your friends and colleagues together and call your senators' home offices to set up appointments with the member or her or his staff during the August recess.
FCNL's guide for setting up a lobby visit and meeting with members of Congress.
Talking points for your meetings.
Letters and emails are effective, too. Now's the time to ask others to join us in supporting the Iraq Study Group bill.