Congressional oversight overdue on Iraq policies

02/01/2005

STEVE ANDREASEN

Pioeneer Press, Feb 1, 2005

Over the past four years, Congress has granted President Bush tremendous leeway in setting our nation’s policy course. Exhibit A: Congressional review of the president’s case for war in Iraq — as well as the administration’s post-war assumptions and plans — resulted in a
virtual blank check for the administration. But if the president is listening carefully, he may already be hearing the faint beginnings of a different tune, one first sung by a young Minnesotan, Bob Dylan, 40 years ago: “The times they are a-changin’.”

True, there are few historical precedents for a Congress politically in sync with the White House asserting itself on foreign and defense policy. Indeed, despite some sharp statements by Senate Democrats, both Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales — Bush’s nominees for secretary of state and attorney general — were for the most part treated with kid
gloves during their confirmation hearings, where each was allowed to duck questions relating to their areas of responsibility during the first Bush term.

But the rising casualties and costs of the war may yet catalyze a more aggressive approach by Congress. That could lead to a bipartisan review of Iraq policy — in particular if the situation on the ground appears to be getting worse, not better, following Sunday’s elections.

Specifically, Congress might examine three broad approaches to securing and stabilizing Iraq, including how each would affect our posture in the Middle East, the war on terrorism and our relations with allies:

1. Stay the course at the current level of effort and investment. Can we secure Iraq with the current level of U.S. troops? How long will they need to remain in Iraq before we can claim success and complete the withdrawal of our forces?

2. Substantially increase U.S. forces in Iraq. How much more security will additional troops provide? Where will these troops come from? Will this additional investment of troops and treasure speed up the transition to a stable Iraq or simply delay what some believe is inevitable — that is, a civil war and partition of the country along ethnic and religious fault lines (as was the case with Yugoslavia in the 1990s)?

3. Expedite the withdrawal of U.S. forces. Is there a case for the prompt withdrawal of U.S. forces as the “best” option? What would be the “trigger” for commencing withdrawal — for example, is it feasible as some have argued to leave the issue to the Iraqi people by holding a referendum in Iraq on whether U.S. forces should stay or go?

It is clear today that more aggressive congressional oversight might have uncovered the uncertainties surrounding intelligence estimates about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; exposed the need for a more realistic post-war plan; highlighted the policy and moral failings of
exempting detainees from the Geneva and anti-torture conventions; or gotten necessary armor to our troops in the field. In short: Had Congress done a better job of oversight, our nation and our troops might be safer, and the Iraqi people more secure.

It’s not too late for senators and House members to — again, in Dylan’s words — “Please heed the call.” Congressional hearings on Iraq this year could help the administration develop sound policy and prepare the American people for what lies ahead. That is in the best interests of
both parties in Congress, and the nation.

Steve Andreasen was director for defense policy and arms control on the
National Security Council from 1993-2001. He is a national security
consultant and teaches at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs, University of Minnesota. He was also a candidate for the House in 2002.