WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- The Bush administration has drawn a political line in the sand against Democrat initiatives to try and push through legislation forcing U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.
With opinion poll approval ratings from the president running only in the mid-30 percent range and public attention centered on the fourth anniversary of the start of U.S.-dominated and led combat operations to topple Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2003, the White House focused this week crafting a new political strategy to counter the Democrats on Capitol Hill.
On Monday morning, Bush spoke with his national security team, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Commander in Iraq Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad Zalmay Khalizad. He followed that up with a video conference with Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki.
Later the president issued a message to the American people asking them to have patience and give his new "surge" strategy to try and tame the violence in Baghdad a chance to work.
"The new strategy will need more time to take effect. And here will be good days and there will be bad days ahead as it - as the security plan unfolds," he said. "It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating."
The president's long command of Capitol Hill was broken when the Democrats won control of both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives in the midterm congressional elections in November. At first, there was talk of bipartisan cooperation on Iraq, but with Democrats taking the political offensive on a range of Iraq-related issues, the White House has dug its heels in too.
The administration has threatened to veto any congressional legislation that either tacks on frivolous, district-oriented provisions onto an emergency war funding supplemental and/or sets a timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Such legislation is expected to be debated in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives later this week.
The move marks an abrupt reversal on the president's almost unprecedented reluctance to veto any legislation passed by Congress during the first six years of his time in office when his party controlled the House for all of that time and the Senate for most of it.
Also, White House political strategists are seeking to turn the widespread support among Democrats for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq into a political asset for the embattled president.
White House Spokesman Tony Snow, echoing senior administration officials, took the offensive, charging that the pressure among many Democrats to set a timeline mandating troop withdrawals was defeatist. "That is not a fund-the-troops bill but a withdraw-the-troops bill," he said.
The approach by the Democratic bill before Congress, Snow said, was a "conducive to defeat. It is a recipe for failure, not victory."
Administration comments heighten the dilemma Democrats face on the war. Although anti-war sentiment is at high tide among Democratic Party members, there is widespread indecision on the best way to end it, or assert congressional control over its conduct and longevity.
Moderate Democrats in Congress don't want to be seen as embracing "defeat" or hastening it and leaving themselves open to the accusation that they are hamstringing U.S. commanders in the field.
Even get-out-now Democrats are leery of action that could be interpreted by the public -- and leveraged by Republicans -- as harmful to the morale and/or physical security of U.S. forces in Iraq.
The American public may be sick of the war and want it ended, but that can be quite different from embracing actions that could be perceived as an ignoble cut and run.
Democrats also face the dilemma of heavy criticism for not acting more forcefully to bring about quick withdrawal by anti-war activists, who would normally be expected to support Democratic candidates.
Under the measure now before the House of Representatives as part of an emergency funding measure, U.S. combat forces would be withdrawn from Iraq by late 2008, and even earlier if Iraq does not meet specific benchmarks on achieving control over security and at implementing national reconciliation measures.
The administration has slammed the proposal as calling for withdrawal without any consideration of the situation on the ground at the time. A withdrawal timeline, it says, means terrorists and other insurgents just need to sit back and wait for U.S. forces to leave. It would also undercut the new Iraqi government and send a message of unreliability to allies.
A non-binding resolution disapproving continued U.S. involvement in Iraq was passed by the House earlier this year. The Senate, in which Democrats hold slimmer control, failed to pass the measure.
Democrats later scrapped a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to strictly tie war funding for troops to equally strict standards of training and equipping of new troops destined for Iraq as part of the "surge" strategy to dampen violence in Baghdad and neigboring provinces. The president would have had to certify the standards Congress would have set were met, or admit they hadn't but troops were being sent anyway. The proposal was dumped amid opposition from moderate Democrats.
March 19, 2003, marked the start of the air war again Iraq. The ground war started a couple of days later. More than 3,200 U.S. service personnel have died so far in the conflict.
