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:
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.
