The timetable wars between the U.S. Congress and White House has just escalated. By a very narrow margin (218 for, 212 against) last week, the House of Representatives passed a bill that set a timetable for bringing American troops back from Iraq. The withdrawal plan called for most GIs to be out of Iraq by September 2008. The supporters of the plan also underlined the need to concentrate on Afghanistan, where increasing Al-Qaeda attacks are threatening NATO’s position. Following the vote, President George Bush denounced the bill at once and admonished that he would veto the bill if it would come before him. A Senate bill on 29 March ordered troop withdrawals to begin within 120 days and the White House again threatened with a veto.[1]
Under the U.S. Constitution, both houses of Congress need a two-thirds majority to override the President’s veto. The override does not seem possible as the Republican members of Congress (who almost uniformly rejected both proposals) will not change their minds.
So what? Why does all of this matter if congressional opposition is not going to have an effect?
What makes the new round of the timetable wars is that even though it is suspect that Congress may place any real restraint on Mr. Bush’s policies, lack of popular support for the U.S. presence in Iraq will have a profound impact on the 2008 elections. Given that almost all presidential contenders from both parties are members of Congress, and that their approach to the question will determine their success, it is certain that the civil war in Iraq will be the central issue in next year’s elections.
One of the Democratic candidates is Senator Hillary Clinton, who is burdened by her support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. She currently opposes Mr. Bush’s policies and has struggled to distance herself from her previous vote. On the one hand, Mrs. Clinton is unable to renounce her original stance on the war for fear of appearing unsupportive of the U.S. effort. On the other hand, she cannot afford not to criticize current U.S. policies in Iraq because that could also cost her a lot of votes. The former First Lady is going to have to walk a very tight rope in order to become First Citizen.
A very strong Democratic candidate is Senator Barack Obama. In contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is not tainted by his stance over Iraq because he was elected to the Senate in 2004, after the invasion of Iraq. Thus, Mr. Obama can criticize the war without fear of being labeled inconsistent or hypocritical. In contrast to Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama does not carry the image of a remnant of the Clinton presidency. Moreover, Mr. Obama conveys a lot of charm as a youthful politician. Thanks to these strengths, he could appeal to the American people in unexpected ways.
On the Republican side, two individuals stand out: the hero of September 11, former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani and the renegade Senator John McCain. Even though Mr. Giuliani represents the fighting spirit of New York City during and after September 11, his politics does not allure a majority of American voters. Whereas the successful presidential candidate will be the one who will be able to place himself/herself at the center of the political spectrum, Mr. Giuliani is conspicuously conservative. That may be a problem. As for Iraq, his position is as follows:
Like all Americans, Rudy Giuliani prays for the success of our troops in Iraq and their safe return home. But he believes setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal from Iraq now would be a terrible mistake, because it would only embolden our enemies. Iraq is only one front in the larger war on terror, and failure there would lead to a broader and bloodier regional conflict in the near future. Building an accountable Iraq will assist in reducing the threat of terrorism.[2]
In other words, Giuliani supports the U.S. presence in Iraq in principle, but his tone does not sound too adamant. That will probably help him.
As for Sen. McCain, he is at odds with everyone else on the “war on terror” in general and the Iraqi civil war in particular. While he has led the fight against the use of torture and clandestine prisons (probably owing to his personal experience as a prisoner-of-war during the Vietnam War), earlier this year, Mr. McCain threw his lot behind President Bush for the plan to send additional combat forces to Baghdad. For his campaign, Mr. McCain idealistically declares that “Iraq is truly the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world.” “It is now our turn to demonstrate,” he continues, “that our power, ennobled by our principles, is the greatest force for good on earth.” Of the four candidates, Sen. McCain is the only one who really advocates maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq. Notwithstanding his position, which attracts both Democrats and Republicans, Mr. McCain may face impossible odds in his bid for the presidency because of his outlook on Iraq.[3]
The civil war in Iraq will seriously shape the U.S. presidential election next year. At the moment, the timetable wars between Congress and the White House may seem too onerous to follow. But beyond day-to-day politics, the situation in Iraq will shape myriad contenders’ appeal to the American people, whose growing resentment toward the war will determine the leader of the not-so-brave new world.
1 April 2007
+++
Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. student in history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia and a regular contributor to the Journal of Turkish Weekly.
E-mail: kayaoglu@virginia.edu
[2] Giuliani’s positions on many other issues, as well as his reputation of re-creating a safe and livable New York are going to be major boons for his presidential aspirations. Giuliani’s statements available from http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2.
