Supplemental

by hilzoy

Apparently, the Democratic House leadership has finally got the votes to pass the Iraq supplemental bill, which appropriates money to continue the Iraq war subject to certain restrictions*, and requires the withdrawal of all troops by September 2008. Republicans oppose it, as do some liberal House members, who oppose any bill that appropriates money for the war. Others have come round, and concluded that voting for a bill with a clean deadline for withdrawal beats opposing it.

I wholeheartedly support this bill. It took me a while to conclude that the situation in Iraq was hopeless. I thought (and think) that we have a serious responsibility to the Iraqi people, and I wanted us to live up to it, and I hoped against hope that the competence of the military would somehow prevail against the incompetence of the administration. Eventually, though, even I had to give up, and ever since I have wanted us to get out, possibly leaving some force over the horizon. I realize that we can't just withdraw in a headlong, disorganized way; that moving this many troops, while keeping those who are still there safe, is a complicated logistical undertaking, and takes time. Fine. But I'd rather it be done as soon as possible.

The Democrats are in a miserable position. Thanks to Bush's inept prosecution of the war, there are, basically, no good options at all. And if they try to do anything at all, they will probably get blamed for whatever happens next -- and whatever happens next will undoubtedly be awful. Moreover, any attempt to use the "power of the purse", which we are forever being told is our only option, would open us to the charge of cutting off the troops. If Democrats cared only about political astuteness and not at all about either our country's interests or about Iraq, then the thing to do would clearly be to make some gesture that makes it seem as though they're trying, but that is doomed to failure. That way everything is still Bush's fault.

There are things that fit this description a lot more clearly than what the Democrats are actually doing. Bush would veto any bill that sets a deadline for Iraq, so that's a given. But if the Democrats passed a straightforward bill that says: we must be out by September 2008 (or whenever), then Bush could veto it with impunity. By attaching these conditions to an appropriations bill, they're making it more likely that they will, in fact, succeed. One way or another, an appropriations bill has to pass. If it doesn't, the Iraq war will simply run out of money. And if Bush vetoes it, he'll have to be counting on some members of Congress to back down from their position. I'm not sure I'd take that bet, in his position. He seems to me to have infuriated the Congress over the US Attorneys issue, and while normally I wouldn't expect Congress to stick to its guns, there is, I think, a decent chance that they might.

In any case, this should be interesting. I wish it weren't: I wish we were not in Iraq at all, and could have nice dull debates about water rights. In politics, boring is good. But we're not living in boring times.

***

*I've pasted the restrictions in the bill below the fold. It took me a while to find them, so I thought I'd spare everyone else the trouble. Plus, I thought OCSteve might want to see the actual restrictions on deployments.

The restrictions in the Supplemental (H.R.1591) (I haven't put it in blockquotes; this is long enough without them):

"SEC. 1901. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that units should not be deployed for combat unless they are rated `fully mission capable'.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.

(c) For purposes of subsection (b), the term `fully mission capable' means capable of performing assigned mission essential tasks to prescribed standards under the conditions expected in the theater of operations, consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense readiness reporting system.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully mission capable is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's deployment is necessary despite the chief of the military department's assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable, may waive the limitation prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

SEC. 1902. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the extension of a unit's deployment in Iraq beyond the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

SEC. 1903. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.

(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom of--

(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days; or

(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days.

(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the redeployment of a unit to Iraq in advance of the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's redeployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.

SEC. 1904. (a) The President shall make and transmit to Congress the following determinations, along with reports in classified and unclassified form detailing the basis for each determination, on or before July 1, 2007:

(1) whether the Government of Iraq has given United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, and is making substantial progress in delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces; eliminating militia control of local security; establishing a strong militia disarmament program; ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws; establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan; and eradicating safe havens;

(2) whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; adoption of legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects; and

(3) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed Forces are making substantial progress in reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq.

(b) On or before October 1, 2007, the President--

(1) shall certify to the Congress that the Government of Iraq has enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis; adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections; reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws; amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in article 137 of such constitution; and allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis; or

(2) shall report to the Congress that he is unable to make such certification.

(c) If in the transmissions to Congress required by subsection (a) the President determines that any of the conditions specified in such subsection have not been met, or if the President is unable to make the certification specified in subsection (b) by the required date, the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

(d) If the President makes the certification specified in subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than March 1, 2008, and complete such redeployment within 180 days.

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act are immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in subsections (c) and (d).

(f) After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:

(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces.

(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.

(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach.

(4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 50 percent of the funds appropriated by title I of this Act for assistance to Iraq under each of the headings `IRAQ SECURITY FORCES FUND', `ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND', and `INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT' shall be withheld from obligation until the President has made a certification to Congress regarding the matters specified in subsection (b)(1).

(h) The requirement to withhold funds from obligation pursuant to subsection (g) shall not apply with respect to funds made available under the heading `ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND' for continued support for the Community Action Program and Community Stabilization Program in Iraq administered by the United States Agency for International Development or for programs and activities to promote democracy in Iraq."

Comments

[OCSteve]

Thanks Hilzoy. Based on one quick reading, I’m not sure how this differs from Murtha’s original slow bleed plan. I have to digest it a little.

[CharleyCarp]

The question is how it differs from the President's slow bleed plan.

The short-term stuff is waivable by the President (if he finds certain conditions) and the long-term stuff, while not waivable, can be amended, if circumstances are such that a bare majority can be gotten to move the dates. A different President would see which way the parade is going, and get out in front of it. Someone to whom it might be important not to be perceived as sending soldiers to their deaths in support of personal vanity.

[KCinDC]

Hilzoy, your analysis avoids the point that, for some restrictions at least, Bush might not veto but instead use a signing statement to say he's going to ignore the "unconstitutional" restriction. That's his favored way of short-circuiting the constitutional path for making laws.

OCSteve, I'm disappointed to see you using the "slow bleed" propaganda term. Please tell ne you didn't fall for the Republican lie that the Democrats invented the phrase.

[OCSteve]

1902(c) - The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.

If I understand it correctly, this in effect immediately undoes the surge. We already have units that have been extended. On passage of the bill those units immediately become eligible for redeployment. I came to oppose the surge but there have been positive signs lately so I’m conflicted. I would expect Bush to just exercise (d) and certify that they are needed there.

1903 I like. No one should have to do back to back tours.

1904(b) – Did we stand up a free and independent government or not? Implement the legislation we want you to or we are out of there…

…

Good – Having come to oppose the surge and believe its time to get out, I think this does it fairly responsibly. Six months seems like a reasonable time to do it and there are no restrictions on funding having to do with accomplishing a safe redeployment. I’m not happy about hamstringing the military in this way, but it doesn’t look like it is going to happen any other way.

Bad - Now out comes the cynic in me. All troops out by September 2008. Interesting date. Why choose that I wonder. Hmmm. Seems like something else happens in the fall of 2008… Sorry – but that makes this a lot more about politics and elections than anything else. That could of course backfire in a big way.

[OCSteve]

Please tell ne you didn't fall for the Republican lie that the Democrats invented the phrase.

I know that Democrats didn’t invent it. But it is what it quickly came to be called. (Yes – because Republicans jumped on the phrase and used it to good effect.)

[john miller]

Yes, but "slow-bleed" is such a misleading and inappropriate term.

The cynic in you probably is correct about the date, but in a way I actually enjoy Democrats using the Republican techniques.

Just like the democrats will legitimately be able to say that any Republcian who votes against this is against supporting the troops. Anyway, it will be as legitimate as all those (including Bush and Cheney) who said Kerry voted against funding the troops.

BTW, heard on the news this morning that some of the weapons depots that we didn't guard after the invasion are still unguarded and still eb looted. The reason why? Not even feet on the ground.

And the reports said that many of the explosives being used against us are coming from those depots.

No cite as I usually have 3 tv's on in the morning on three different news stations, and I don't remember which one this was from.

[J. Michael Neal]

I'm wondering if the resolution that the Republicans got the Senate to approve, stating that it is the responsibility of Congress to fund the troops, is about to bite them in the ***. The bill with funding and restrictions made it out of committee, so it's going to hit the Senate floor. Has the GOP put itself into a box where it can't filibuster the bill?

[bril]

Nice to know the Dem's have such a laser focus on the issue...

The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.

House Democrats are pressing a bill that has the endorsement of MoveOn.org but excludes the judgment of the U.S. commanders who would have to execute the retreat the bill mandates. . .[Democrats] should not seek to use pork to buy a majority for an unconditional retreat taht the majority does not support.

I think many here talked about how the coalition of the willing was bought and paid for. Seems that its easier to buy a Democrat than it is a coalition partner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com

For some reason, I hear a Cyndi Lauper song playing in the back of my head... something about True Colors...

I guess it's good to know that Hilzoy likes her defeat laden with cash.

[KCinDC]

Yeah, it's too bad that was completely ignored at ObWi, bril. But it's good to know we can continue to count on you for threadjacks.

[morinao]

Just out of curiosity, why are they mandating different periods (365 days vs. 210 days) for the Army and Marine Corps deployment cycles?

[john miller]

Morinao, those are the standard deployments for the two services. That's why many Marines have had more tours that Army. They are shorter tours.

[morinao]

Thanks, I figured it must be something like that. At the risk of sounding like a three-year-old ("why? why?"), why do the Marines have a different standard deployment than the Army?

[morinao]

I mean, is it just "we do it our way, you do it your way" or is there actually a fundamental difference?

[Dantheman]

House passes supplemental 218-212.

[CharleyCarp]

With Gilchrist voting with the majority. OCS, you going to call him?

[Nell]

The non-defense domestic spending was attached in an effort to attract Republicans as well as hold onto some nervous centrist and conservative Democrats. It failed to attract any; Jones and Gilchrest would have voted for a withdrawal timeline in any case.

The Senate version has less additional spending, a quicker withdrawal timeline, and even fewer teeth.

Even if it were to pass the Senate in that form, the conference committee will be faced with quite the dilemma: What form can the reconciled bill take that would get passed in both houses?

So we're a long way from seeing any of this language become law.

[KCinDC]

The votes. Walter Jones (NC) was the other Republican voting for it. Fourteen Democrats voted no. Haven't seen a breakdown of how many were disagreeing from the "left" and how many from the "right", but there are definitely some of each.

[OCSteve]

With Gilchrist voting with the majority. OCS, you going to call him?

Call him what? :)

I saw that. I sent an email expressing support – along the lines of I’m sorry it’s come to this but I understand your vote.

The list of pork is sickening though.

[OCSteve]

Vaccine Compensation: Provides $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine, which is a flu vaccine. Payment to Widow of Rep. Norwood: Provides $165,200 to Gloria W. Norwood, the widow of former Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), an RSC Member, who passed away last month. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), Congress provided $162,100 to Doris Matsui, the widow of former Rep. Robert Matsui.

Anyone have a clue what that’s about? Neither Rep. died of anything remotely related to avian flue vaccine… Why would the Feds be compensating anyone for this?

Minimum wage increase? Isn’t there a separate bill for that? There's all kinds of crap shoe-horned in here...

[KCinDC]

OCSteve, that's just a formatting error. Should have been a new paragraph after "flu vaccine." There's a similar problem with the Liberia item run into the end of the Capitol Power Plant paragraph, and maybe others.

Aren't congressional widows already getting pensions? Why do we need to pass special payments for them every time some member dies?

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: as far as I know, no H5N1 vaccine has ever been made, so no one could possibly have died from it. I imagine that's for future use (since the vaccine is in the future.)

[OCSteve]

Ahh - thanks. Boy I can't wait to try that vaccine. Setting aside money for victims in advance...

[KCinDC]

I'd also take any list of Democratic sins prepared by the Republican Study Committee and filtered through the Club for Growth with a huge vat of salt, OCSteve. As you say, the minimum wage is a separate bill, so I don't know how they managed to work out a way to count it as part of this one. Reminds me of the lists of Clinton tax increases that counted all sorts of odd things as tax increases -- even counting an item whose description took up three lines as being three separate increases.