Money for Iraq war?

For the next eight weeks millions of people who want an end to the U.S. war against Iraq and its occupation of that country will focus their attention on the U.S. Congress. With the Iraq Study Group’s report fizzling out quickly, the ruling-class debate over the tactics of the Iraq war has moved to Capitol Hill.

First, because the Bush gang on Feb. 5 submitted its budget, which included a record Pentagon outlay of $480 billion plus over $140 billion supplemental funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations. Second, because the Democratic Party won last November’s election by criticizing President George Bush’s Iraq policy. And its voters want action.

There is no reason to believe the Democrats are suited to lead a struggle to end the war. Democratic politicians presided over World Wars I and II, dropped nuclear weapons on Japan, and started the Korean and Vietnam wars and the 1999 air war against Yugoslavia. Like the Republicans, the Democratic Party has represented the interests of U.S. imperialism with militaristic zeal.

It should come as no surprise then that despite the Democrats’ electoral strategy of opposing Bush’s war policies and despite their awareness that U.S. plans to conquer Iraq are heading toward disaster, the party’s national leadership has proposed only a “symbolic” resolution criticizing Bush. Instead of flat out refusing to vote to fund the war or refusing to fund the “surge” of 21,500 troops, the Democrats will say: “We oppose the surge.” Then they will fund the war.

In the Senate the Republicans opposed even this minor step. The debate stalled a day after it got started.

If the Democratic House leadership has its way, from Feb. 14 to Feb. 16 there will be a debate on a “nonbinding resolution” opposing Bush’s policy. They too will attempt to restrict the struggle to mere symbolism, even though they have the constitutional power to cut funds for the war.

In the House there are two bills, HR 508 and HR 455, which go further toward actually cutting off funds. These have a core of supporters. Even the sponsors of these bills felt they must take pains to show they support the troops. It is revolting that even though the criminal Bush administration lied to the troops to send them to conquer Iraq, has kept them there killing and dying under false pretenses, and has failed to care for the injured veterans, it can still pose as a “defender of the troops.”

The Democratic leadership will try to keep these more confrontational bills off the floor and out of the media. None of these Democrats want to take the responsibility of winding down the war with a big U.S. military defeat.

Yet a recent poll showed that 64 percent of the people want Congress to be more assertive in challenging Bush over the war. One can expect that even a constrained congressional debate on the war can involve greater sectors of the population, with the potential of spilling over into direct action to demand an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.