Real test has yet to come

February 18, 2007


Real test has yet to come

The White House's firm position that it would not feel deterred from pursuing its own course in Iraq by any congressional resolution has cast a dark cloud on the US's image as a democracy. After all, Congress represents the elected representatives of the people of the country, the administration's refusal to abide by its decision — although in the form of a non-abiding resolution — takes the substance out of the democratic principles that it should respect. Constitutional procedures and loopholes might favour the administration's stand, but questions are cast on the moral authorit of the White House when it refuses even to consider the decisions of Congress.
It was reported that President George W Bush would not even bother to watch the House of Representatives vote in favour of a resolution on Friday rebuking his strategy in Iraq. If true — and that it was revealed by the White House itself — it shows how indifferent the president could get towards positions adopted by the US Congress.
The Democrats, who claimed control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate of the US Congress in November elections, adopted the resolution with a 246-182 vote. Eight Republican representatives opted to go along with the Democrats in what a clear sign of a growing restlessness in the Republican camp that something is seriously wrong in the administration's conduct of the war.
A similar motion was to go before the Senate in a rare Saturday meeting. Regardless of whether the Senate succumbs to Republican tactics and does not take a vote on the issue, the Democrats could claim a moral victory. They could point out that they had brought the issue to the public arena and spoke their mind, but that the administration would not listen.
However, the real test has not been taken. The only way the US Congress could bring the US military's involvement in Iraq to an end is through refusing funds to finance the US-led war there. That is indeed a minefield for many US senators and representatives, whether Republican or Democrat. Any more to cut funds for the military could be interpreted as unpatrotic since it, in principle, would place US soldiers in a dangerous situation.
At the same time, denial of funds would not have an immediate impact on the US military since the administration has already appropriated the money for the immediate phase. A cut-off in funding would make its impact felt only after several months.
In the meantime, some Democratic strategists argue that denying funds for the war should be accompanied by another resolution demanding the recall of the US military from Iraq. Such a move would be dramatic and would raise serious questions about the powers of the president in his capacity as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That would be fought teeth and nail by the administration.
There are indeed Democratic represenatives and senators who are determined not only to pursue the effort to end the US involvement in Iraq but also to hold the administration to account for having launched the deceptive war against that country and expose the political forces which led the US into the disasterous conflict with little regard for US national interests. The Democrats "will demand the truth and accountability from this administration, about the costs of the war, about the reality of the war strategy and about the impact of the war on our larger national security," accordng to Representative Chris Carney, a Pennsylvania Democrat.
Indeed, that goes far beyond the immediate question of taking effective and practical action in order to block the continuation of the US war in Iraq beyond the timeline presented by budgetary requirements. That poses the real test: Will the Democrats and a few likeminded Republicans have the courage to deny funds for the neoconserative-designed war and also block their government from pursuing its misadventurism in the Middle East?