Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers

Sept.13, 2007


Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers


MANY around the world and within the US itself were jubilant when the Democrats put up a strong showing in last year's mid-term elections and gained control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Many expected the Democrats to swiftly move ahead and have in place a legislative order for US military withdrawal from Iraq. However, the rule of the game of numbers in the US Congress did not allow that to happen. The Democrats could make a lot of noise and level high-decibel criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, but they could achieve little on the ground.
They are not even near the majority in Senate that they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is getting ahead on its prescripted course. President George Bush was poised to announce his endorsement of the recommendations made this week by General David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce US troop levels by some 30,000 — or only about 20 per cent — by August next year. That is a cosmetic move since the recall of 30,000 would still leave some 135,000 US soldiers and marines in place – about the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated in February. Again it is a game of numbers of sorts.
It is clear that the recall is designed to appease some of the Republican critics of the war who are growing more uneasy about the high number of soldiers present in Iraq. Under current regulations which limit to 15 months tours of duty in combat zones, 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and Petraeus is disguising their recall as a move prompted by the "success" of the surge.
There is little doubt that any substantial reduction of troops is unlikely while Bush bows out of the White House in January 2009.
Effectively, there is little the Democrats could do to end the war in Iraq or change the course of the US conduct there unless they get enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
There are 50 Democrats in the Senate, and they might be able to muster another 10 votes from Republicans who are disgruntled with the war and the way the Bush administration has taken the US towards disaster. But that is not enough to make any real difference.
This means that Bush's successor, who is most likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, given the current administration's disastrous governance of the country, would inherit the mission of extricating the US from its bloodiest and most costly overseas misadventure since its involvement in Vietnam. But the mission would not be taken up because US strategic interests are stake in the Middle East regardless of who occupies the White House, and the game in Washington would continue with players in reversed roles with unchanged rules.