The Nov. 7 midterm congressional elections led to the defeat of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and Senate. Now, the Democrats are the majority in both houses. How will this affect U.S. foreign policy in the ongoing imperialist Iraq war?
Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have said repeatedly that they will not cut off money for military
|
Reid, the incoming Senate majority leader, recently outlined his program for the new Congress. It did not include pushing for any war spending cuts. He directly dismissed the will of U.S. voters and pledged obedience to Bush when he announced, “Now [Bush is] the commander-in-chief, and we’re not going to do anything to limit funding or cut off funds.”
Reid also stated that he would support sending thousands of more troops to Iraq, but then quickly backtracked when he was widely attacked by pro-Democratic voters who felt instantly betrayed.
The Democratic leadership has stated uniformly that their only concern is to “demand a better accounting of the war’s costs and move toward integrating the spending into the regular budget.” (International Herald Tribute, Dec. 14).
The have attacked the Bush administration’s approach of paying for extended military operations through emergency spending requests. The Democrats claim that this practice has inhibited congressional scrutiny of military spending.
But the Democrats do not want to exercise Congress’s “power of the purse” to cut off war funding. They simply want to exercise more oversight in the process of meeting the capitalist interests of global domination. The Democrats are doing a balancing act. To keep those who voted for them happy or at least confused, the Democrats have offered token criticism of Bush’s war spending policies while fundamentally supporting them.
This doublespeak highlights what has been the truth for many decades—Congress’ power over appropriations is merely a shadow. The Democrats in Congress don’t want to challenge the White House’s authority to manage the war. Thus, the occupation will continue, more Iraqis and U.S. troops will die and funding for the “war on terror” will carry on.
Politicians agree on imperialist goals
Following the elections, incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Bush and the Republican Party leadership to extend the “hand of friendship and partnership.”
This accommodation with Republican leaders should not come as a surprise to anyone. During the campaign leading up to the elections, the Democratic Party touted itself as the “anti-war party” and the “people’s party.” These were lies.
Even the most outspoken Democrat advocating troop withdrawal from Iraq, like John Murtha (PA-D) was really not against the war. He recognized that the war could not be won militarily.
Murtha called for “immediate redeployment” of U.S. troops to other countries in the Middle East, dubbing the war
 |
But “immediate redeployment” and “bringing the troops home” are two different things. When he spoke out, Murtha was calling for bolstering of the U.S. presence in the region. He was acting as the mouthpiece for sectors of the Pentagon brass who opposed how the Bush administration and neo-conservative were handling the war.
‘Power of the purse’
The U.S. ruling class has little use for Congress when it comes to important policy decisions.
Power in the modern capitalist state resides in the super-centralized executive branch—the military, the CIA, Homeland Security, and the FBI. Congress is a talk shop.
As set forth in the Constitution, the major power of Congress is to authorize and appropriate government funds. This is known as the power of the purse. The other source of congressional authority is in its exclusive power to declare war.
But since the start of World War II, no U.S. war has been declared by Congress. Congress did not declare war in Vietnam and it only cut funding for the war in 1974—one year after the last U.S. soldier left Vietnam.
It is important for revolutionaries and all progressives to understand that relying on the Democrats for “anti-war” leadership is a dead end. The Democratic Party, an imperialist party, will not end the war.
As in Vietnam, it will be the forces of resistance within the occupied country coupled with a truly mass movement demanding an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq that can stop the war and force the government to bring the troops home now.
