Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IRAQ: NEO-CON ESCALATION, REPUBLICAN SPLIT William D. Hartung, Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute Analysis of President Bush's speech earlier this month on Iraq policy: Not only did the President essentially trash the Baker-Hamilton commission's main recommendations - most notably with respect to negotiating with Iran and Syria - but it adopted an escalation plan straight out of the play book of the neo-conservatives who helped promote the Iraq fiasco in the first place. Frederick Kagan, a neo-con in good standing who hangs his hat at the American Enterprise Institute (former home to John Bolton and Dick Cheney), helped draft the plan, which conforms to proposals that prominent figures in that movement (such as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol). If you think the war has been a disaster thus far, just imagine what the latest neo-con initiative can do. While the neoconservatives are back in Bush's good graces for the moment, their position is not making much headway on Capitol Hill. A bipartisan resolution opposing the troop buildup in Iraq is in the works in the Senate, with co-sponsorship by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Although the resolution will be non-binding, it could represent a first step towards more focused Congressional opposition to the escalation in specific and the war in general. Still to be determined is whether the Democratic leadership will follow up on suggestions that they may be willing to go after funding for the troop increase. The main tactical advantage for team Bush is that they may be able to go ahead with the 21,000-plus troop increase -- which is not an increase per se, but an acceleration in redeploying existing units -- regardless of Congressional action on funding, and then argue yet again that cutting the funds could undermine "troops in the field." If things play out this way, Congress has several other levers it can use. One critical agenda item should be to separate out non-Iraq spending from other military items in the administration's upcoming spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, which is likely to be in the range of $100 billion or more. All manner of funding for unneeded programs that have no relationship at all to the war in Iraq is likely to be included in the President's request. Stripping those funds out while putting the supplemental through more extensive scrutiny - including hearings in the budget and armed services committees - could help put the administration on the defensive, while heading off unnecessary expenditures that could balloon into tens of billions in new Pentagon spending in years to come. Likewise, opposition to the administration's proposed increase in the size of the Army - pegged in one news account to be as high as 90,000 new troops -- could be couched in terms of what the troops are for, as suggested by analyst Gordon Adams of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. Are the troops, which couldn't possibly come on line for two years or more, for long-term occupation of Iraq? For a strike on Iran? If so, they should be opposed as such. If not, what on earth are they for? Where are these new troops going to come from? Meanwhile, back to the Republicans. Among the fiercest opponents of current U.S. policy have been would-be presidential contenders like Chuck Hagel and senators up for re-election in 2008 like Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR). But even right-wing Republican presidential wannabes like Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas have come out against the troop escalation, suggesting that they see no strong push back on this issue from the party's conservative base. Cutting funding or otherwise impeding the Bush administration's policy on Iraq will require some Republican support, both to avoid filibusters and to provide "cover" for Democrats who are still wary of being tagged as "soft on defense." Therefore, the continuing split over the war in the Republican camp should be watched closely, and encouraged! RESOURCES: Jonathan Weisman, "Bipartisan Senate Measure Confronts Bush Over Iraq," Washington Post, January 18, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011702328.html Cindy Williams, "Surge Could Push Troops to the Breaking Point," Boston Globe, January 10, 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/10/surge_could_push_troops_to_the_breaking_point/ Gordon Adams and John Diamond, "Don't Grow the Army; Expansion Ducks the Real Question of Defining the Force's Mission," Washington Post, December 31, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901424.html The Arms Trade Resource Center was established in 1993 to engage in public education and policy advocacy aimed at promoting restraint in the international arms trade. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms _____________________________ Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you can visit: http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news Go to that same web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe. E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few days will become disabled or deleted from this list. FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.
