Bipartisan Push to End the War over the Iraq War

Twenty-eight members of the House of Representatives have come together to sign a statement of principles to govern future action on Iraq. Led by Congressmen John Tanner (D-TN) and Mike Castle (R-DE), the group seeks to end the fighting over Iraq policy inside the walls of Congress, and establish the framework of a bipartisan Iraq policy going forward. The Swamp prints the text of the agreement:

Bipartisan Compact on Iraq Debate We agree that the U.S. Congress must end the political in-fighting over the conflict in Iraq and commit immediately to a truly bipartisan dialogue on the issues we are facing. We agree that efforts to eliminate funding for U.S. forces engaged in combat and in harm’s way in Iraq would put at risk the safety and security of our service members. We agree that there must be a clearly defined and measurable mission for our continued military involvement in Iraq. This mission must be further and continually defined so that the military and the country are aware of the end goal of our mission in Iraq and what progress toward that goal is being achieved. We agree that the Government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq’s future course. The Government must continue to make progress on the legislative benchmarks outlined in Section 1314 of the recent Supplemental Appropriations Act (PL110-28). We agree that it is critical for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, including members of the reserve components, to have adequate rest and recuperation periods between deployments. We agree that a safe and responsible redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq, based on recommendations from our military and foreign policy leaders, is necessary to transition the combat mission over to the Iraqi forces. We agree that the continued military mission of U.S. combat forces must lead to a timely transition to conducting counterterrorism operations, protecting the U.S. Armed Forces, supporting and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security, assisting refugees, and preventing genocide. We agree that U.S. diplomatic efforts should continue to be improved and that the U.S. State Department must engage in robust diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East to address the Iraq conflict.

These bipartisan agreements often break down over interpreting the principles, and that will be a challenge here. What constitutes a ‘defined and measurable mission?’ How quickly must we transition to a mission of counterterrorism and supporting the Iraqi forces? It’s always possible that these 28 Members will grow impatient with progress in Iraq, and push the Bush administration to move more quickly than it would like. But in a broader sense, it seems that this may have the effect of imposing a formal, bipartisan imprimatur on the Iraq policy that Congress has de facto hashed out. By choosing to fund the Iraq mission even if it means dropping the demand for a timetable, Congress is essentially allowing the Iraq war to continue under the direction of the generals (and of course, the president). If we continue to ‘make progress’ (whatever that means), this policy will likely continue. If sectarian violence increases, the government collapses, or the mission otherwise takes a step backward, Congress may reconsider. The Tanner/Castle bipartisan agreement seems to enshrine that state of affairs as the favored policy of the signers. And in the near term, it effectively takes off the table 28 moderate votes that Democratic leaders might have targeted for legislation to tie the president’s hands. If Iraq continues to make sufficient progress, this agreement might be one more sign that the bitter confrontations in Congress about cutting off funding for Iraq are coming to an end–and on the president’s terms.

Related Content