updated March 24, 2008
Iraq Troop Withdrawal Debate Goes on in 2008
The somber news that 4,000 Americans (8 civilians and the remainder military) have died in Iraq as of March 2008 has pushed the already polarized sides in the debate of Iraq troop withdrawals even further apart. They have provoked more urgent calls for a troop withdrawal and end to the war among the war's substantial opposition.
Such an end is unlikely to come very soon. In late March, President Bush was reported to be considering a 'pause' in the ongoing drawdown of some troops to pre-surge levels. The current reductions will bring troop level to 140,000 in July. The military has recommended that the president permit an assessment of the situation before any further withdrawals. The constraints on the president's decision making are a good reminder of how many factors are at play in deciding troop levels.
I first wrote about Iraq troop withdrawals just before the 2006 Congressional elections. At the time, it was widely believed that a shift from Republican to a Democratic Congress would effect a serious change in the trajectory of the war (or end it). At that time, I laid out a number of factors that would limit a Congress of either party to determine US troop levels in Iraq
Americans' keen desire to affect the Iraq War and U.S. troop levels had galvanized opinions and made the 2006 Congressional elections among the few to turn on a foreign policy issue. Polls at the end of October consistently showed that Iraq has trumped every other issue, including terrorism and the economy, as a key voting factor.
The factors were:
- The need for bilateral decision-making
- The power of the executive branch
- the needs and goals of the U.S. military
- Whether Iraqi troops are prepared, and
- What Iraq wants.
When I first contemplated these constraints, I didn't necessarily believe they would endure as long as they have. And yet, when I returned to them in March 2007, just as Congress began voting on withdrawal timetables, they had remained relevant.
A year later, they still do. Below you'll find updates on each of the original six factors Congress, and how they matter today. The larger point, at this juncture, is that Congressional will--even when backed by a popular mandate--is restricted by other factors.
To a lesser extent, there are also factors that limit presidential will. This is worth thinking about as Americans head into another election, this time for president. It matters a great deal what Clinton, Obama and McCain (the three possible contenders as of this writing) want. But as their platforms become more detailed, we might also ask that they begin explaining how they will deal with other stakeholders in the Iraq war: the US military, Congress, and--not least--Iraqis themselves, whose own fatalities, by credible estimates may be as high as 89,867 civilians.
Factor 1: The Executive Branch has a say.
2006 prediction: Regardless of Congressional leanings, President Bush, as the head of the executive branch and the national Commander in Chief will have the final say about how the U.S. engages in Iraq, whether troops are withdrawn, and if so in what circumstances.
In 2008:It is still true, and will be for the next president too, of course, that the president has the last word. But not the only word. The president's current decision on whether to halt withdrawals after removing the five supplementary brigades sent last year is being made with the guidance of the US military head in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker, the Ambassador to Iraq. And, although we cannot know for certain, it is possible that Bush will make a decision he'd rather not have to. Keeping troops in Iraq is a reminder to all of the failure of his promise of victory, and a private reminder of the human cost of a war he initiated.
Factor 2: Bi-lateral decision making will be necessary in Congress.
2006 prediction:Decisions made about troop withdrawal, or other elements of American engagement in Iraq, will require bi-partisan decision making in Congress. Regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans dominate Senate and House, the high stakes—for the political livelihood of those in Congress, as well as for Americans in Iraq—will require negotiated decisions.
In 2008:This prediction was born out clearly by a Democratic majority Congress to come anywhere close to campaign promises to end the war. In the end, they ended up funding it more fully and having to stand back as the troops 'surged' into Iraq in January, 2007. The more general truth obtains as well; outcomes in Congress are generally negotiated ones.
Factor 3:The differences that Democrats and Republicans paint while on the campaign trail don't necessarily reflect how they'll act in office.
2006 prediction:The Bush White House may be preparing for disengagement already.Disengagement options that are politically palatable to the Bush Administration may come from a forthcoming report of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group convened in March, 2006 to assemble recommendations for Iraq. The group will not release its recommendations until after the November 7 elections. The discussions already generated around leaked issues however, suggest that the report will offer the Bush Administration "political cover to start pursuing an exit strategy," as one political analyst has put it.
In 2008:It seemed in 2006, when the war was clearly a political liability for Republicans seeking seats in Congress, that a compromise solution might be on the way already, contrary to the general Republican stance. Ironically, it turned out to be true that Democrats did not (or could not) act as promised. The particulars of this moment--Bush, the impending Democratic majority, the Iraq report--have passed. But other versions will arise -- even well intended plans tend to shift.