Stopping The War...Eventually

Alec Dubro

March 21, 2007

This week will bring the first binding vote in the 110th Congress seeking to bring an end to the Iraq War. Right now, the vote on the $124 billion Iraq war supplemental spending bill is scheduled for Thursday, although Democratic leaders may postpone it until Friday in an effort to secure the 218 votes it needs to pass. But even if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets a majority, there is only a slim chance the bill will then pass in the Senate. And absolutely no chance it will be signed by the president.

But first things first. As of Wednesday afternoon, those 218 votes are in doubt —imperiled as much by progressive defections as by the reluctance of conservative Democrats. The mainstream media are inclined to see this as a test of Pelosi’s leadership , even of the failure of nice-guy House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, D-S.C. But, there is a real, substantive division between those who want to end the war, and those who want to ease out of it—or, in the case of Hillary Clinton, to keep the troops in Iraq but not have them shoot anyone.

It would seem that compromise on the war is morally indefensible. If the war is wrong, then the first act must be to stop it. Not in a year or six months, but now. As John Lewis, D-Ga., said on the House floor on Monday:

Tonight, I must make it plain and clear, that as a human being, as a citizen of the world, as a citizen of America, as a member of Congress, and as an individual committed to a world at peace with itself, I will not and cannot vote for another dollar or another dime to support this war.

Neat, simple, right, morally coherent—and destined to lose. But Lewis is not some isolated leftist; he’s the senior chief deputy whip, responsible for rounding up a large chunk of Democratic votes. So, Pelosi loyalists are not at all confident. As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told The Hill newspaper on Tuesday, “If you’re asking if I have 218 votes at this minute who I know will vote for it, the answer is no.”
 
The following day, Hoyer issued a statement saying that the Democratic leadership’s war bill would, in fact, mark “a new direction” away from the Bush administration’s “failing policy that has cost us so much in blood and treasure”:

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act will protect our troops by requiring that troop deployments adhere to current Defense Department standards for training, equipment and armor. The President may waive such standards if he certifies that national security requires it.
  
The bill also holds the Iraqi government accountable, requiring it to abide by the benchmarks outlined by President Bush in January. And, the bill provides a responsible strategy for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces—no later than August 31, 2008, about 18 months from now.    

One experienced peace movement activist said that the conflict in Congress mirrored that in the antiwar community. “Our position is, not one more dime for this war, and this bill gives a lot of dimes and a lot of time to end the war. At the same time, this is a significant vote. It’s challenging the president. It sets a limit. I don’t like the bill, but I sure hope it passes.”

The real question is, why is it so difficult to speedily end the war? The November election made it clear that a voting majority wants out of Iraq. Poll after poll reaffirms it, as sentiment swings even more sharply against the war. Democratic members of Congress—and not a few Republicans—know what the public wants, and share that belief. But many can’t bring themselves to go on the record. Not even to choose a distant finish line, and slightly restrict funding. Not even for a bill that will never become law under this White House.

As we publish this, we are being treated to the unseemly sight of Democratic leaders buying votes—put another way, buying the lives of American soldiers—with pork-barrel projects and with threats of lost committee seats for members who follow their consciences.

If the supplemental fails, clamor to end the war will not cease. The Hill quotes a leadership aide as saying Democratic leaders “have long memories.” But so do the progressive activists who elected Democrats with the intent that they would end the war in Iraq and change the nation’s priorities. The outcome of this war supplemental vote will show how much work the progressive movement has ahead.