By Brian Bohl
Joe Biden might be trailing fellow Democratic presidential candidates in the early polls, but the senator from Delaware provided one of the most jarring statements in his party’s debate during the first week in June.
As the only Democratic candidate in the senate to vote in favor of the Iraq spending provisions, Biden articulated a sad truth to what it will take to eventually end the war in the region. As long as President Bush remains in office, any threats to curtail military spending from its record levels-or any legislation that includes timetable for troop withdrawal-will most likely be met with a veto.
“Ladies and gentlemen, you’re going to end this war when you elect a Democratic president,” Biden said during the New Hampshire debate that occurred the first week in June. “You need 67 votes to end this war. I love these guys who tell you they’re going to stop the war.”
Philosophical differences are usually more nuanced when members of the same party debate each other as opposed to when a Democrat and a Republican square off. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually presented some differences in their stances on the Iraq war. Obama holds an inherent advantage on this issue, as the Illinois senator is on record opposing the conflict from when he was a state senator in 2002.
Clinton voted to authorize force, insisting that she would vote differently if presented with the opportunity again. Her stance reflects the sentiments of the dedicated Democratic base, and her rhetoric on Iraq embodies those feelings. “This is George Bush’s war,” Clinton said. “And what we are trying to do, whether it’s by speaking out from the outside or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war.”
Eight candidates participated in the debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. Biden was the only current senator out of the three in attendance who voted in favor of the Iraq spending bill after President Bush threatened to veto it if Democrats demanded a timeline for withdrawal. Obama and Clinton did not vote for the measure, which actually garnered praise from John Edwards.
If current trends continue, that decision to vote against increasing funding could prove to be prophetic. A New York Times report said American and Iraqi troops control fewer than one-third of the area’s neighborhoods, despite an influx of thousands of additional troops in the previous months.
In lambasting the lack of progress in Iraq, the Democratic candidates were not engaging in perfunctory banter regarding a hot-button issue. Demanding results is not just for ambitious politicians anymore. The war entered its fifth year, yet the negatives continue to outweigh the gains made in restoring stability to the country’s most volatile areas.
Consider the news that the U.S. armed forces could be forced to delay making a security assessment for three months. Instead of evaluating Baghdad’s security prospects in July, military officials pushed the timetable for securing the neighborhoods back to September.
Four of the five supplemental brigades are already in the city, with about 30,000 American troops expected to be in the area once all reinforcements to the region arrive. The troop surge failed to quell violence in the area, while violence continues to escalate throughout the country. May was the third bloodiest month since the war began in March 2003, with 127 troop deaths reported.
The bad news hasn’t caused an irrevocable split between Congressional Republicans and the White House just yet, though President Bush will be unable to enjoy unconditional support without tangible results. The next election is only five months away, and GOP members will value keeping their jobs rather than staying loyal to a president with low public approval numbers.
In the meantime, their disagreements continue with the Democrats over the next phase in Iraq.
“Signaling a date certain for withdrawal has never been a good policy,” Ed Patru, a spokesman for the House Republican Conference, said in the Los Angeles Times. “Republicans will oppose irresponsible Democrat policies.”
The Bush administration’s irresponsible decisions necessitated the talks about timetables and pullouts. When it comes to wars between developed countries and unorganized militias and insurgents, a long, prolonged conflict does not favor the superpower. Recent history suggests the violence in Iraq will only continue to escalate, meaning the Democrats could continue to gain seats in the Senate and possibly control the White House by 2008.
Maybe by then, the war can be stopped. Maybe by then, those 67 votes won’t be necessary.
Brian Bohl is a senior print journalism and political science student. You may e-mail him at [email protected].