Iraq: not if, but when ...

Because of the persistence and hard work of the antiwar movement, the Iraq debate in Congress has shifted from "if" to "when" we pull out of Iraq.

Both the House and Senate have now passed versions of the $124 billion supplemental defense appropriations bill, to which they affixed troop withdrawal dates and other demands (but no call for Congressional approval on Iran). Some antiwar groups applaud Pelosi's ability to pull together a bill with enough votes to pass and declare this a partial victory, an important “first step” in changing course in Iraq. Others insist that Congress’s call for troop withdrawal is either weak (House) or non-binding (Senate). Senate and House members must now somehow compromise on a timetable acceptable to both houses, and ultimately, of course, Bush has threatened to veto any bill with a timetable.

So what’s next? And what should we do? The anti-war movement needs to keep the pressure on Congress. As United for Peace and Justice is saying, “We must insist that what comes out of the conference committee sets a firm end date for our military presence in Iraq. As weak as these bills are, the compromise version must not be weakened behind closed doors.”

Bush will probably get a bill by mid-April. He could simply sign it, ignore the conditions, and have his funded war. We lose this round. Or he could veto it, as promised (thereby delaying “needed” funds), and send it back to Congress. They in turn could weaken or remove the conditions in order to satisfy Bush (and to be seen as “supporting the troops”). Or else they could refuse to put forth another bill (or fund only a troop withdrawal) – that is, they could use their power of the purse to stop the war.

This last option is where the antiwar movement should keep its focus and its pressure.