Democrats are preparing a nonbinding resolution criticizing the increase in troops while also claiming that the constitution does not allow them to stop the “commander in chief”—including through cutting the funds for the war. As the headline of an article in the January 11 Financial Times aptly put it, however, “Congress is helpless only out of choice.”

Statements by many critics of the Bush administration have made it clear that, whatever complaints they express, bipartisan support for Washington’s war aims in Iraq and the region remains strong.

“America cannot simply wash its hands of Iraq and go home,” said the New York Times in a January 14 editorial. “For starters, Iraq is in imminent danger of violently breaking apart… . Iran has already become more formidable and dangerous.”

The bulk of the additional troops will be deployed in Baghdad, and 4,000 of them will be sent to nearby Anbar province. They will be targeting anyone who gets in the way of establishing a stable government that would be friendly to U.S. interests in the region. This includes going after Shiite militias, such as the Mahdi Army led by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose forces operate in and outside the Iraqi government and have been responsible for indiscriminate killings of Sunnis, a record similar to that of Sunni-led death squads. The government headed by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has a strong base among al-Sadr’s supporters.

This sectarian fighting among bourgeois factions vying for a bigger share of power claimed the lives of more than 34,000 Iraqis and wounded another 36,000 last year, according to a United Nations report released January 16. These figures are three times higher than those Baghdad released earlier.

During the January 14 “60 Minutes” interview, Bush told host Scott Pelley that critics of his plan have “an extra responsibility to show us a plan that will work.” He said he would fight any attempt to cut funding for the increase in troops.

Carl Levin, a Democrat and chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he is working with a bipartisan group to pass a nonbinding resolution “simply saying that we do not agree that more troops are the answer.”

John Murtha, also a Democrat and chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he would use hearings on a $100 billion supplemental request for the war from the White House to show that sending more troops could deplete the military’s strategic reserve in case of conflicts with Iran or Syria.

Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said January 14 on ABC’s “This Week” television program that funds for the extra troops are already in the 2007 budget.

Meanwhile, articles in big-business dailies have highlighted the absence of any serious alternative in ruling-class circles to the Bush administration’s escalation of the war.

After expressing disappointment at the president’s plan, an editorial in the January 11 New York Times concluded, “We have argued that the United States has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq as long as there is a chance to mitigate the damage that a quick withdrawal might cause.”

In its January 14 issue the Times editors took for granted that more troops are going to be sent to Iraq. After much criticism of Bush, what was their advice to Democrats? “Congress should continue asking hard questions,” they said. “And it must insist on real answers before acting on any new requests for money to support Mr. Bush’s plans to send more troops to Baghdad. Congress has the authority to attach conditions to that money, imposing benchmarks and timetables on Mr. Bush.”

In a January 11 Financial Times commentary, Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate.com, said that Congress can pass a law barring the president from sending more troops, limit military tours of duty, and set deadlines for withdrawal, in addition to cutting the funding. “When they say they are incapable of stopping Mr. Bush’s plan, what congressional Democrats really mean is that they are afraid to oppose it,” he said.

In the CBS interview Bush said Iraqi premier Maliki has assured him that all militias, including al-Sadr’s, must put down their arms or be dealt with by Iraqi and U.S. forces. Washington now maintains its troops will have a “green light” to enter any neighborhood and will not be hampered by previous restrictions placed on them by the Iraqi government.

Last August Maliki sharply criticized a U.S. military assault in Sadr City, a Baghdad suburb and a stronghold of Muqtada al-Sadr’s forces.

Maliki’s administration depends on al-Sadr’s support within the Shiite electoral bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, against their common rival, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which has the strongest ties with Tehran.

In the CBS interview and subsequent comments to the press, Bush expressed his disapproval at the taunting of Saddam Hussein by al-Sadr’s supporters, who shouted “Muqtada! Muqtada!” as Hussein stood on the gallows. “It looked like it was kind of a revenge killing,” Bush said January 16, hinting that this could be used to go after al-Sadr’s militia.

Reaction to the January 15 gruesome hanging of Saddam Hussein’s half-brother, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, in which he was decapitated by the rope, brought new outrage among Sunnis against the Shiite-dominated regime in Baghdad.
 
 
Related articles:
U.S. naval buildup in Gulf targets Iran
Conference in Iran questioning Holocaust promotes Jew-hatred
Young Socialists build January 27 antiwar march  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home