November
25 , 2005
Senate Rebuffs
Bush on War in Iraq
A resolution passed yesterday
(Nov. 15/05) with a broad bipartisan support, 79
to 19, virtually rebuffed the Bush Administration
on its conduct of the war in Iraq. In a pivotal
shift, the Republicans and the Democrats have given
a clear indication that they can no more be expected
to keep endorsing the Administration’s lead
on the war. The Senate has thus distanced itself
from its earlier record of standing by the President
in the war. The senators were clearly reflecting
the general public abhorrence to a war that was
from day one vehemently opposed throughout the world
as it lacked a palpable casus belli and any legitimacy
under the international law.
The resolution calls for 2006 to be “a period
of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty”
and for “the phased redeployment of US forces
from Iraq”. It requires the administration
to report quarterly on the progress for achieving
this objective. This requirement reflects the lack
of trust in the Administration. It also indicates
the increasing role the Congress intends to play
in the conduct of war and peace.
Significantly, the resolution has come almost on
the heels of the President’s rebuke to politicians
calling for a withdrawal of troops from an ‘unpopular
war’. He pointed out that he had declared
the war on Iraq after the Congress had authorized
it. Questioning now the raison d’etre, he
felt, would amount to “rewriting history”.
If the US withdrew now, it would amount to surrender
in a battle of nerves with the enemy; “we
must therefore stay the course”.
Yes, it is true that in October 2002, the Senate
had voted 77 to 23 and the House 296 to 133, authorizing
Bush to go to war against Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
The subsequent worldwide demonstrations did not
lead to a review of the authorization. Nor, did
intensive search later on lead to the discovery
of any weapon of mass destruction. It was just a
hoax blamed now on faulty information furnished
by intelligence agencies.
President Bush’s contention that Saddam was
a threat to the security of the United States sounded
unconvincing, considering the puny size of his country
and its war machine. It was, no doubt, a threat
to Israel, and Saddam’s antipathy towards
it was no secret. But, no one in the administration
was willing to point that out as the real casus
belli.
The resolution we are examining in this column now
counters the contention of the President for staying
the course. As Sen. Richard Durbin (D Illinois)
has remarked, “It’s not good enough
for the President to make speeches about staying
the course when the course has led to so many lives
being lost, so many dollars being spent”.
The Senate Minority leader even called it “a
vote of no confidence” on Bush’s Iraq
policies.
The Senate did not, however, block the allocation
of the $500 billion defense budget - the crucial
aspect of the matter. Nor, did it give a timeline,
as proposed earlier by the Democratic Senators that
might have restricted US military operations in
Iraq.
The resolution was evidently a compromise formula
that would allow the war to continue but with increased
efforts to hasten an end to it.
Also, it presses indirectly the Iraqi administration
to take over the security responsibilities from
the US and coalition troops. To the coalition partners,
it signals the shape of things to come.
President Bush, in an immediate response to the
resolution said in Kyoto, Japan where he was on
a visit: “I appreciate the fact that the Senate
rejected the proposal of Democrats to set a deadline
for the withdrawal.” The requirement of quarterly
report to the Senate, he thought, would pose no
difficulty.
President Bush is as well known for his optimism
as for his obstinacy that does not admit of any
change of mind under external pressure. No wonder
he took the derogatory resolution as a “positive
step”, ignoring the clear unease in both Parties
over the administration’s Iraq policy.
While unprecedented public rallies were being held
in the fall of 2002 throughout the world against
his administration’s decision to launch a
war against Iraq, he found these as an endorsement
of democracy, which encouraged the free expression
of the opposite point of view. He was as adamant
in pursuing his course then as he is now despite
being badly stuck in Iraq’s quagmire.
The flow of body bags, the unabated continuance
of insurgency in Iraq, the unimpressive outcome
so far of the war on terror, the enormous outlays
on the conflict, the shaky economy, the high cost
of gas and energy, the indictment of a top White
House aide, Lewis Libby, for perjury and obstruction
of justice, the debacle of the nomination of Harriet
Miers, the inordinate delay in coping with Hurricane
Katrina, and some other factors have sunk Bush’s
popularity in opinion polls. A recent Washington
Post-ABC poll found only 39 percent approval for
his presidency. An A.P. survey placed it at 37 percent
This being the popularity index of the Bush Administration,
would there be a significant shift in policy in
the near future? The answer is: no, it is unlikely.
Although objective conditions advocate a shift in
the stance on Iraq, there is little possibility
of this happening during the tenure of the Bush
Administration given his own tenacity and that of
his Vice President and their close advisers.
The Senate resolution correctly reflects the agony
and aspirations of the common man. But, the scenario
of disengagement it forecasts might turn out to
be a mere optical illusion.
