War Casts Heavy Shadow on Lame-Duck President
Dec. 21, 2006 — -- President Bush has shown a renewed interest in engaging Democrats on Capitol Hill, but the president who vowed in 2004 to spend his political capital now appears low on currency.
A skeptical Democratic majority and the pre-eminence of the Iraq War are likely to make bipartisan cooperation difficult if not impossible.
Over the next year, the Bush administration is expected to face stern questions in Congress over the increasingly unpopular war. And with military commanders saying the war could stretch into the next decade, the issue is likely to preoccupy the administration throughout the lame-duck president's final two years in office, fuel critics who seek to replace him in 2008, and overshadow the rest of his agenda.
In a year-end news conference Wednesday, Bush promised to reach out to the Democrats who will control Congress beginning next month.
"I'm looking forward to working with them. You know, there's a lot of attitude here that says, Well, you lost the Congress. Therefore, you're not going to get anything done," Bush said. "I have an interest to get things done, and the Democrat leaders have an interest to get something done."
He urged critical historians to hold their pens.
"Look, everybody's trying to write the history of this administration even before it's over," Bush said. "I'm reading about George Washington still. My attitude is if they're still analyzing No. 1, [No.] 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he thinks is right, and make the tough choices necessary."
Where the Democrats Stand
Democrats on the Hill appear especially critical of Bush's idea for a surge of 30,000 or more additional troops in Iraq.
"I don't think it's a real good idea," Rep. Ike Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee who is expected to chair the panel beginning next month, said yesterday on PBS' "Jim Lehrer Newshour." "Adding to the patrols in the streets? Being more targets for the insurgency, for the sectarian militias? I'm just not sure what purpose they would serve."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who is expected to run for president in 2008, agreed. "If it's not going to change the mission, if it's not going to be a different strategy. I don't see where putting more troops will make a difference," Clinton said on ABC's "The View" yesterday.
That does not mean Democrats will block the move. Skelton acknowledged that troop levels were the president's prerogative. While Democrats could eventually make such a move difficult by cutting off funds, they've declined to call for funding controls in the past out of fear that they would be seen as unsupportive of U.S. troops.
Another Bush proposal, increasing the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps, is not likely to face congressional objections. Many Democrats, including Skelton, and moderate Republicans have long called for more troops.
Congressional Power Play
Yet while Democrats are unlikely to micro manage troop levels in Iraq, they are expected to use the conduct of the war as a broad indictment of the president's policies there. They are expected to use their positions at the head of congressional committees to hold a broad array of hearings into the war, putting administration managers in the hot seat.
Members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose recommendations for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq include negotiations with American rivals Iran and Syria, have been asked to testify in more than a dozen hearings next year.
Changing of the Guard
In a conciliatory nod to newly empowered Democrats, Bush dismissed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld the day after the November election that cost the Republicans control of Congress. He also appears to be refashioning much of his military command, replacing those leaders with commanders who are less wedded to the policies of the past.
Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno recently replaced Gen. Peter Chiarelli as the No. 2 commander in Iraq. And this week Gen. John Abizaid, the head of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, announced he would leave by next spring.
Both commanders had been expected to turn over their commands in the coming year or so. Military sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Gen. George Casey, who as top commander in Iraq was Chiarelli's boss, is also expected to leave soon.
War critics are likely to have fodder for years to come. Lt. Gen. James Mattis, a top Marine general often mentioned as a possible replacement for Abizaid, told the North County Times in California that Americans would be fighting in Iraq into the next decade.
"I think it will take five years," Mattis said. "Over that period, we will see a declining level of U.S. forces and casualties, and a corresponding decline in enemy effectiveness."