Bush vetoes an already weak Democratic bill

Are the leaders of the Democratic Party really battling the Bush administration to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Many people in the U.S. fervently hope they are, as the agony of the war reaches into more and more communities.

But the Democratic bill that President George W. Bush just vetoed fell far short of requiring an end to the wars and occupations.

The House and Senate had voted for a war spending bill that would give the Pentagon another cash infusion—this time another $95.5 billion—to continue the military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill gave the White House $4 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan than the president had asked for. (International Herald Tribune, April 24)

Democratic Party leaders presented the bill as an anti-war struggle with the White House because of a rider attached calling for troop withdrawal.

Section 1904(b) of H.R. 1591, the supplemental appropriations bill for the Pentagon that Bush just killed, stated that the secretary of defense should “commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.”

Republicans reportedly didn’t hunker down to shoot down the bill, because a White House veto was a certainty. Democrats lack the two-thirds majority required to override the president’s veto.

“With the veto coming,” Carl Hulse wrote in the April 27 International Herald Tribune, “some Democrats argue that the bill should simply be stripped of the timelines that have drawn Bush’s ire and sent it back with the benchmarks and troop readiness rules intact. Others contend that Congress has made its anti-war statement and should now give the president the money he has been demanding without conditions.”

The Democrats were “hoping to shape public sentiment for the 2008 elections,” reported the April 29 Philadelphia Inquirer.

“In the months ahead, they’re going to force House and Senate Republicans to vote repeatedly on the war—GOP members will have to decide, again and again, whether to stand with their unpopular president,” the Inquirer explained.

By standing firm, the article concluded, George W. Bush “clearly hopes to split the Democrats. “ It predicted that some Democratic lawmakers would “cave on the pullout timetable.”

Two springs ago—on May 10, 2005—the Senate voted 100 to 0 to appropriate $76 billion in supplementary war spending for the Pentagon occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The congressional Republican majority and Democratic minority had already approved $300 billion in spending on the so-called war on terror since the U.S. began preparing to invade Afghanistan after 9/11.

But since then, the devastation of Iraq has continued, the toll of U.S. troops killed and wounded also keeps rising, the Iraqi opposition to occupation has only grown, and even U.S. military commanders began openly criticizing Bush’s conduct of the war. Today, the Democrats hold the majority on Capitol Hill, elected by voters who hoped that a change in parties would bring the troops home.

At the same time, sectors of the capitalist ruling class in the U.S. have lost confidence in the Bush administration’s promises of an easy victory that would secure them lucrative profits.

In other words, finance capital doesn’t want “peace” in the Middle East, but it doesn’t want to continue losing in Iraq, either. It wants a winning strategy for re-colonization of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the freedom to redeploy troops to menace Iran, Syria and other countries in the Middle East and in Central Asia. Ending the $5 million spent each day to bankroll the Israeli colonial occupation of Palestine wasn’t even up for debate.

Having taken a stand that they hope makes them popular with the voters, the Democrats are now talking about compromise.

The April 29 Associated Press reported, “Democratic leaders may scrap the timetable but work with Republican lawmakers on benchmarks: ordering the Iraqi government to fulfill promises on allocating oil resources, amending its constitution and expanding democratic participation.” This language, “ordering the Iraqi government,” betrays the totally undemocratic character of the relationship between the U.S. and what it falsely claims to be a sovereign Iraqi state.

The incoming Democratic chairs of the Senate and House budget committees had stated last December, after their party won the congressional majority, that they would insist on more “accountability of war’s cost and move to integrate spending into regular federal budget.” (New York Times, Dec. 14, 2006)

Even the April 1, 2008, timetable in the bill for troop withdrawal exempted troops that are “protecting U.S. interests,” carrying out “counter-terrorism missions” and training Iraqi forces.

The wording of the House bill said, “[N]o military units could be sent to Iraq unless they are properly trained, equipped and rested, although Bush could waive such requirements.” (SFgate.com)

These are loopholes you could drive an armored Humvee through. Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton already stated in mid-March, “I think we have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” which require continued presence of U.S. troops. (CBS News, March 15)

In their April 30 online article, “A Democratic Sellout on Bush’s Mercenaries,” journalists Jeremy Scahill and Tom Engelhardt analyzed the wiggle room in the congressional bill.

U.S. forces would still be deployed to guard the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad—the largest embassy on the planet—plus the “Green Zone” in Baghdad, other facilities and air bases like Balad—whose air traffic volume rivals Chicago’s O’Hare airport.

The Pentagon would retain some 10,000 to 20,000 trainers and advisers in Iraq.

“Counter-terrorism” combat operations against “al-Qaeda” would continue. Gen. David Petraeus already paved that road when he told lawmakers on April 25 that, “Al-Qaeda is a primary source of violence in Iraq.” (IHT online, April 27)

“Another way of thinking about the Democratic withdrawal proposals,” Scahill and Engelhardt explained, “is that they represent a program to remove only U.S. ‘combat brigades,’ adding up to perhaps half of all U.S. forces, with a giant al-Qaeda loophole for their return.”

The Democrats’ bill also didn’t mention the 126,000-strong private mercenary army currently in Iraq.

By the way, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tied a minimum wage raise—the first boost for low-paid workers in a decade—to this war spending bill, which everyone knew would be vetoed.

Bush’s veto should of course be condemned, but the anti-war movement must have no illusions about the Democratic Party, either. It will take many more masses in the streets and in militant actions against these wars to really stop them and bring the troops home.