Members of Congress Concerned About Bush’s Future Plans for Iraq

By Shirl McArthur

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (fourth from right) talks with Iraqi government officials during an unannounced visit to Iraq on Feb. 10, 2008 (AFP photo/Ho/Tech. Sgt. Jerry Morrison).

ON NOV. 26 PRESIDENT George W. Bush signed, without congressional consultation, a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the U.S.,” with the goal of concluding by July 31, 2008 a final agreement between the two governments, including U.S. “security assurances…to deter foreign aggression against Iraq.” The same day Deputy National Security Adviser Gen. Douglas Lute stated that the White House did not anticipate that there would be formal congressional input to the agreement. However, in apparent contradiction to the “Declaration,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Feb. 6 of this year assured the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that the proposed agreement “will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq.”

As reported in the previous issue of the Washington Report, on Dec. 6 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) introduced S. 2436. It would prohibit any funds to be “authorized or appropriated to carry out any bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Iraq involving ‘commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole,’ including a status of forces agreement, that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation passed by both houses of Congress.” The bill now has nine co-sponsors, including Clinton. (While campaigning in South Carolina, Clinton chided Sen. Barak Obama [D-IL] for not having signed on as a co-sponsor—which, on Jan. 22, he promptly did.)

Two similar bills were subsequently introduced in the House. On Jan. 15, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced H.R. 4959 to “ensure that any such agreement is in the form of a treaty with respect to which the Senate has given its advice and consent to ratification.” The bill has 43 co-sponsors, including DeLauro. Then, on Jan. 23, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), with 13 co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 5128 “disapproving of any formal agreement emerging from the ‘Declaration of Principles…’ unless the agreement is approved through an Act of Congress.”

Separately, on Jan. 31 Bush said that he would not be pressured into making further U.S. troop cuts in Iraq beyond those already scheduled. Currently, troop levels are falling by about 5,000 per month and are scheduled to reach the pre-“surge” level of 130,000 by mid-July. Gates has suggested that troop levels could continue to fall to about 100,000 by early 2009, but U.S. commanders in Iraq, including senior commander Gen. David Petraeus, have said they would like to see a “pause” in the troop reductions, and Bush’s statement indicates that he is inclined to agree with them. This, combined with the “Declaration of Principles” described above and Bush’s “signing statement” to the Defense Authorization Act, in which he indicated that he might ignore the language prohibiting permanent U.S. bases in Iraq and U.S. control over Iraqi oil fields, has caused Democratic congressional leaders to fear that Bush is trying to commit the next president to his Iraq policy. Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) said that these actions “only reaffirm to Americans that there is no end in sight to the war in Iraq.”

One new resolution regarding Iraq was introduced. On Dec. 19, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), with six co-sponsors, introduced H.Con.Res. 274 “expressing the need for a more comprehensive diplomatic initiative led by the U.S., the Republic of Iraq, and the international community to ensure the establishment of a cohesive government in Iraq.” Subsequently, on Feb. 6, Gilchrest, with seven co-sponsors, introduced H.Con.Res. 288, a slightly modified version of H.Con.Res. 274, with the same title.

Of the many previously described Iraq-related bills, only H.R. 3797, introduced by Rep. David Price (D-NC) in October, has made any progress. It would require the president to “seek a regional diplomatic plan for the Middle East,” and has gained seven co-sponsors and now has 49, including Price.

Two New, Positive Iran-Related Bills

Most of the previous positive Iran-related bills have been efforts to try to head off possible military action against Iran. In January, two representatives tried a different approach. On Jan. 17, Lee introduced H.R. 5056, the “Iran Diplomatic Accountability” bill, “to provide for the appointment of a high-level U.S. representative or special envoy for the purpose of easing tensions and normalizing relations between the U.S. and Iran.” Among the bill’s seven “findings” is that “a diplomatic solution that includes direct, unconditional, bilateral, and comprehensive talks with the government of Iran is the only way to resolve long-standing tensions between the U.S. and Iran.” The bill has 12 co-sponsors, in addition to Lee.

The next day, Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) introduced H.R. 5084 “to require the secretary of state to conduct ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran.” Among other things, the bill would require the appropriate U.S. agencies to collect data on the effectiveness of Iran sanctions, assess their impact, including factors that impair or strengthen them, and assess the contribution of multilateral sanctions against Iran.

The letter described in the previous issue of this magazine originated by Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) following the Dec. 3 release of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)—stating that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program and that “Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously”—was sent on Dec. 20. In addition to Welch and DeFazio, the 27 signers to the letter, which concludes that “it is time to begin direct, unconditional, and comprehensive negotiations with Iran,” were Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT) and Democratic Reps. Michael Arcuri (NY), Tammy Baldwin (WI), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Bruce Braley (IA), Steve Cohen (TN), Elijah Cummings (MD), Lloyd Doggett (TX), Keith Ellison (MN), Sam Farr (CA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Luis Gutierrez (IL), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Mazie Hirono (HI), Michael Honda (CA), Darlene Hooley (OR), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Lee, Jim McDermott (WA), James McGovern (MA), James Moran (VA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), John Olver (MA), Pete Stark (CA), John Tierney (MA), Lynn Woolsey (CA) and David Wu (OR).

Meanwhile, of the previously described measures aimed at forestalling aggressive action against Iran, only H.R. 3119, introduced by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) in July, which would prohibit the use of funds for military operations within or above Iran’s territory without congressional authority, has made any progress. It has gained Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) as a co-sponsor, and now has 29, including Udall.

On the other hand, a few of the counter-productive, anti-Iran measures have made some progress. The Senate’s version of the “Iran Counter-Proliferation” bill, S. 970, which would impose more sanctions on Iran, and was introduced by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) in March, has gained three co-sponsors and now has 71, including Smith. The House version, H.R. 1400, passed by the House in September, still rests in various Senate committees. S. 1430, introduced by Obama in May, to authorize state and local governments to prohibit state and local assets from being invested in companies having more than $20 million in investments in Iran’s energy sector, has gained two co-sponsors, and now has 25, including Obama. H.Con.Res. 257, introduced in November by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), expressing “strong concern” over Russia’s sales of arms to Iran and Syria, and urging the president to impose sanctions on the Russian entities engaged in such arms sales, has gained two co-sponsors and now has 10, including Ros-Lehtinen.

Opposition to Saudi, Gulf States Arms Sales Falls Short

On Jan. 14, the Bush administration formally notified Congress of a potential sale to Saudi Arabia of $123 million worth of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) kits and associated munitions and services. (The JDAM is a kit that, when attached to the rear of a conventional bomb, converts it to a “smart” bomb, able to hit within four feet of a target.) The sale would include 900 JDAM kits, 550 500-pound bombs, 250 2,000-pound bombs, and 100 2,000-pound bombs with penetrating warheads.

This sale would bring to $11.5 billion the amount of sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states proposed so far. In July, when he announced $30 billion worth of military aid to Israel over the next 10 years, Bush also announced plans to sell $20 billion worth of arms to Gulf countries. In addition to the JDAM kits, Saudi Arabia is in line to buy armored vehicles, personnel carriers, towed mortars, and machine guns; airborne early-warning and command and control systems; and Sniper advanced targeting pods for their F-15s. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is to get 200 JDAM kits and associated bombs and services, Hellfire missiles and blast-fragmentation warheads for its helicopters, and anti-tank TOW missiles. The UAE is also negotiating for a multi-billion-dollar advanced Patriot-3 missile defense system. Kuwait is in line to purchase more than 3,500 TOW missiles, and PAC-3 missile kits to upgrade earlier missiles and radars associated with the Patriot system.

Congress had 30 days to reject the sale. As reported in the November 2007 Washington Report, the month after the July announcement of plans to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, 114 committed Saudi bashers in the House, led by Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV), wrote to Bush saying that if a sale of weapons for Saudi Arabia is proposed to Congress, they intended to vote against it. So it was no surprise that on Jan. 15 Weiner introduced H.J.Res. 76 disapproving the sale to Saudi Arabia (but making no mention of the UAE or Kuwait). Before the resolution could go to the House floor, however, it had to get out of the Foreign Affairs Committee, then chaired by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), perhaps Israel’s strongest congressional supporter. But on Jan. 14 the Jewish Telegraph Agency reported that a spokesperson for Lantos, who had announced that he would retire at the end of this session for medical reasons, said that Lantos “does not intend to ask the committee to consider any resolutions of disapproval on this matter.” The 30 days expired on Feb. 13. At that time Weiner’s resolution had 104 co-sponsors, not even a quarter of the House.

(Lantos, who was Jewish and perhaps Israel’s strongest supporter, died of cancer on Feb. 11. He was born in 1928 in Hungary and was a young teenager when the Nazis invaded Hungary. He was often referred to as Congress’ only Holocaust survivor. He was never in a concentration camp, although he did spend time in a forced labor camp. He was one of the young Jews saved by the Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg. The many obituaries written about him cited his “concern for human rights” and his “dedication to the cause of the oppressed,” yet he publicly expressed no concern for the plight of the Palestinians. Lantos likely will be succeeded as chairman of the HFAC by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA), who is 66 and has represented the San Fernando valley and parts of Los Angeles since 1982. Berman is also Jewish and was a member of this magazine’s most recent “Hall of Shame.” He is unlikely to change significantly the committee’s direction or activities.)

11 Representatives Urge Humanitarian Aid for Gaza

On Jan. 23, Kucinich and 10 other House members wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to use her influence to lift the blockade of Gaza. “Threatening the public health of 1.5 million people is not an effective or lawful means to ensure the security of Israel,” the letter pointed out, adding that the U.S. “must support a viable peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.” The letter’s other signers, all Democrats, were Reps. Neil Abercrombie (HI), John Conyers (MI), Danny Davis, Farr, Grijalva, Hinchey, Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Betty McCollum (MN), Norton, and James Oberstar (MN).

New Resolution Introduced “Condemning” U.N.’s Treatment of Israel

On Jan. 23, Ros-Lehtinen introduced H.Res. 939 “condemning the glorification of terrorism and the continuing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric at the United Nations.” The resolution includes a page and a half of “whereas” clauses detailing such anti-Israeli actions at the U.N. as flying the Palestinian flag but not the Israeli one on the 60th anniversary of the U.N. resolution partitioning Palestine. However, nowhere are cited anti-Semitic actions or statements, unless criticizing Israel or supporting the Palestinians is considered anti-Semitic—which, no doubt, was Ros-Lehtinen’s objective. Her resolution has 22 other co-sponsors.

Shirl McArthur, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is a consultant based in the Washington, DC area.