Democrats’ new focus: What kind of shape will Bush leave Iraq in?

By Lisa Mascaro

Saturday, Jan. 26, 2008 | 2 a.m.

After a year spent trying unsuccessfully to pull troops out of Iraq, congressional Democrats and allies in the anti-war movement are now focusing on the kind of Iraq operation President Bush will leave behind for the next commander in chief.

The subject has already come up in the presidential campaigns.

During the Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Sen. Hillary Clinton asked Sen. Barack Obama whether he would support her bill to require Senate approval for Bush’s next Iraq game plan.

Sen. John McCain told a war protester in New Hampshire that he expects troops to be involved in Iraq for the next 100 years.

Now Washington is awakening to this new chapter in the war debate.

At issue is the president’s announcement in November that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki were working on a new agreement that would govern the United States’ future military relationship with the country.

Until now, U.S. troops have been allowed to operate in Iraq under annual resolutions approved by the U.N. Security Council. But the Iraqi parliament has indicated the resolution approved in December will be the last.

Scholars say Iraqi politicians are under pressure from their constituents to assert their sovereignty. Though many Iraqi civilians appreciate the American military presence and want troops to protect their country from the twin evils of insurgency and civil war, other Iraqis resent what they see as an occupation.

What that new agreement with the United States would look like, and whether Congress would have final approval, are what have anti-war activists and leading Democrats troubled.

Nevada’s lawmakers are beginning to take sides.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a speech Friday at the National Press Club that any agreement must come to Congress.

“Some Republicans are talking about staying in Iraq for 50 or even 100 years while President Bush wants to cut a deal that will guarantee our presence well past his term,” Reid said. “The president is on notice: He cannot do that unilaterally. Any long-term deal must meet the approval of Congress.”

But Republicans are not so sure.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., thinks an agreement is needed to move the United States “from being a military occupier to having a normal relation with Iraq,” spokesman Matt Leffingwell said. “The congressman is encouraged that the initial negotiations do not pursue a permanent base agreement and they do not address troop levels.”

Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign said such agreements historically can be crafted without Congress. “Part of the solution to bringing stability to the region includes the administration’s agreement being negotiated,” he said in a statement. But he also said he is reserving judgment until he sees details.

Brian Katulis of the liberal Center for American Progress said that when details begin emerging “there may actually be a sustainable midpoint between Republicans and Democrats, and between our country and Iraq.”

Moira Mack, a spokeswoman for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, an umbrella organization for anti-war groups, seeks assurance that Bush will not unilaterally craft an agreement that sets troop levels in a way that will “tie the hands of the next president.”

“President Bush and his cronies have been ratcheting up the rhetoric about keeping our troops in Iraq for another decade,” Mack said in an e-mail. “That is absolutely unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans who oppose keeping our troops in Iraq for years to come.”

The White House has suggested that it doesn’t need congressional approval to forge a new agreement. The administration points to dozens of “status of force” agreements for its troops stationed around the world. Bush has set a deadline of June to reach an agreement with Iraq.

Scholars say the details will be critical. If Bush commits to defending Iraq from outside attacks, as language being used by the administration now suggests, the agreement becomes more than a standard status of force measure. It becomes a treaty. And the Constitution, as well as precedent, requires the president to seek Senate ratification of any treaty, as has been done to solidify U.S. relationships with South Korea and NATO, for example.

Michael Rubin, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he thinks Democrats and Republicans are on the same page.

“The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot,” Rubin said. “The agreement has not been written yet ... It’s not going to be secret.”

The new tack comes after Democrats spent a long and bruising year unable to change course in the war, as they had promised. Most Americans still want the war to be over and the troops to come home. Democrats insist they will continue to fight for troop withdrawals in 2008.

By early spring, war funding will run out again and Congress will need to debate whether to provide the Pentagon more money to continue the operation. Anti-war lawmakers will continue pressing to end the war.

But in many ways the withdrawal debate is done, said Matthew Bennett at the centrist national security think tank Third Way. The surge of troops that has been partly credited with bringing increased stability to Iraq is winding down. Troops are coming home. The military presence will revert to pre-surge levels by fall. After that, it’s just an interlude until a new president.

“The fact is, there is no way that a timeline is going to become law under Bush,” Bennett said.