The debate over the administration request for funding for the Iraq war in 2008 is growing increasingly complex. As we've covered here, Democrats wrote a Department of Defense funding bill which specifically authorized the Bush administration to borrow funds from regular accounts to conduct the Iraq war for several months, at least. It was clearly the intent of House Democratic leaders to make a show of 'defying the White House' on Iraq funding for several months, secure in the knowledge that they had already acted to prevent any crisis in Iraq funding. The House has now passed Iraq supplemental funding legislation that is dead on arrival, and Congressional leaders assure the White House that no money will be forthcoming until they change course.
It's almost certain that this is just bluster. After all, if Congressional leaders really intended to play a game of chicken, why give the White House a way to access Iraq funds in the defense bill? If they truly intended to blackmail the Pentagon--change course, or else--then why make sure to give DoD the funds it needs to continue the war?
The only logical conclusion is that Congress intended to head off for Christmas and New Year's, bragging to their constituents that they've not given in; that they'll force the White House to come around. Then they could cave after the holidays--perhaps in February, when all attention is focused on the primaries.
But the Pentagon made it clear yesterday that their funding plan will not work, and that Congressional Democrats will pay a heavy political price if they fail to act soon. In a briefing yesterday, Secretary Gates saidif Congress does not approve the president's funding request, they will have no choice but to begin furlowing civilian employees. They will begin to notify those employees of their involuntary furloughs a few weeks before Christmas. The Department of Defense asserts that this move is unavoidable if the Dems continue to play games with the funding request. Watch Gates' full statement for in the video at right.
Army Secretary Pete Geren delivered the same message to the Senate Armed Services Committee:
The Army may also need to close child care centers and libraries and halt family and youth activities. Transportation and custodial services at Army bases could also be affected, as well as counseling for returning soldiers and their families. The Army will also be unable to meet its NATO obligations and will have to halt civilian and contractor support to its European and Southern Commands and forces stationed in Korea.
These defense funding fights have happened before of course, and history tells us precisely what to expect next. As Democrats are trying to blackmail the Pentagon into pulling out of Iraq, they will ironically argue that it's the White House that's trying to blackmail Congress. They'll say that the measures Gates is threatening to take are unnecessary, and are only intended to increase pressure on Congress to act.
In fact, Democrats have already begun to make that argument. John Murtha--who said just a few days ago that the regular defense appropriations bill 'does not fund the war in Iraq'--now tells the Los Angeles Times there are sufficient funds for "both peacetime and war operations... with no impact to troop readiness, until at least March 2008."
Murtha isn't eager to explain exactly where that money came from--if not from a defense bill that he says 'does not fund the Iraq war.'
The real question is, what will Congressional Democrats do? Is it conceivable that they will not provide the funds needed by our men and women in uniform? The War Room points out that Harry Reid doesn't seem all that defiant:
A reporter asked Reid if he was at least ruling out the approval of any further funding before the end of 2007. "What I just indicated is we had a vote today," Reid said. "It was 53- 45. We picked up a nice Republican vote. I think that that's extremely important to indicate. We're going to continue to push these same lines. But I think it's also fair to indicate that we're going to watch this very closely."
In all this of course, Democrats continue to ignore the fact that the troop drawdown they want has already begun. Republicans need to call them on this--and point out that what Democrats are really pressing for now is a hasty withdrawal that ignores facts on the ground.
