WASHINGTON, March 28 (UPI) -- The controversial troop withdrawal language written into both the Senate and House war supplemental bills would be unlikely to result in any troop withdrawals even if the bill is not vetoed as promised.
Both versions of the 2007 emergency supplemental call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops -- albeit at different times -- less those forces needed to protect U.S. installations and personnel, those training Iraqi forces, and those conducting targeted counter-terrorist operations.
Congressional sources confirm both bills leave it up to President George W. Bush to make the determination as to how many troops fall into those categories. U.S. military and Defense Department officials make a convincing case all of them are engaged in the above missions or are providing necessary support to those who do.
"Yes, the president of the United States as command-in-chief does have discretion (over the troop pull out plans) but if we do ever get to that point, political pressure and spirit of congressional intent will not allow him to do such," said Matthew Mazonkey, spokesman for Rep. John Murtha D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
The battle, then, is essentially political. On one side, a Democratic-controlled Congress -- and many Republicans -- who understand the last election and a host of public opinion polls show support has drained for the ongoing war and its staggering cost in life, limb and treasure. The withdrawal language is also meant to send a message to the divided and embattled government in Baghdad that it must make progress reversing deBaathification laws, make arrangements to amend the constitution; protect minority rights in the country and government and develop a proposal for sharing hydrocarbon revenues equitably.
The concern is that if Baghdad believes the United States has an open-ended commitment, it will drag its feet on the uncomfortable political work that needs to be done to unite the country. That work is a fundamental requirement to stabilizing the country. Disaffected Iraqis are more likely to participate in insurgent violence and tolerate terrorist activities.
On the other side are some Democrats, many Republicans and the White House, which sees the expressed plan for withdrawal -- however amorphous and unenforceable -- as both undermining the U.S. military there, encouraging the adversary to hang in the fight until the deadline. From the White House perspective, the bill language also constrains the president, in principle if not in practice, in his role as commander-in-chief of the military.
Neither bill connects the withdrawal timeline to funding, and neither bill states how many or what percentage of troops they expect to be withdrawn or redeployed if the benchmarks laid out for the Iraqi government are not met.
The House bill calls for some troops to be withdrawn beginning within 120 days of the law taking effect and completed by March 31, 2008.
The Senate bill says U.S. troops would have to withdrawn by March 1, 2008, if Baghdad has not made the requirement political compromises by Oct. 1, 2007. If Baghdad does accomplish the political compromises on schedule, U.S. troops would begin to be withdrawn in March 2008. The withdrawal would be completed by October 2008.
Both the House and Senate plans would leave behind "a limited number" for training, counter terror operations and installation protection.
Mazonkey said the number expected to be withdrawn were not specified in the bill "because numbers are constantly changing."
There are now roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. That number will reach more than 155,000 by this summer.
The importance of the bills, according to retired Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., one of the co-chairs of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, is that the bills are an unequivocal statement of national intent.
"It's usually important for the United States to indicate the direction they want to go," he told UPI. "We have clearly indicated the direction we want to go in 2008, very unlike the president's policy with no goal at all, no plan to get out, only increasing numbers of troops. The difference is the direction.
"The president's policy is escalating the war without limit. It creeps up every few weeks," Hamilton said. "The president has given Iraq a blank check. This changes that. There is conditionality."
Nevertheless, if the current language becomes law it would be up to the president to determine how many and what kinds of troops remain in Iraq, no matter what conditions Baghdad meets or fails to meet.
"The bottom line is the president would have a lot of flexibility to be determined" by the conditions on the ground, Hamilton said.
