Washington – The price tag for the war in Iraq keeps rising, along with the casualty count and the public’s skepticism.
Lawmakers – including an increasing number pressing for an exit strategy – recognize that U.S. troops are in Iraq for the long haul even though public support for the war is waning.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has given President Bush $350 billion for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting terrorism worldwide. That total includes $82 billion that lawmakers approved in May; much of this money was for Iraq.
In the month since, polls have shown that the public increasingly is dissatisfied with the direction of the Iraq war.
Nonetheless, Congress keeps writing checks for it.
Today, the House debated a bill that would provide an additional $45 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a Pentagon spending bill for next year, war-funding that Bush hasn’t even requested. The Senate still is working on its own version of the bill that also could include war funds.
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that only 41 percent of adults – a low-water mark – said they supported Bush’s handling of the war. A Gallup poll reported that six in 10 Americans want the United States to withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.
Responding to the growing criticism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Americans to “reach down” into themselves and “look for the kind of patience and generosity that we have exhibited in the past.” “This is not going to be an American enterprise for the long term,” she said. “This is going to be an Iraqi enterprise.” Military officials said they hoped to reverse the downward trend.
“It is concerning that our public is not as supportive as perhaps they once were,” said Lt. Gen. James Conway, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“It’s extremely important to the soldier and the Marine, the airman and the sailor over there to know that their country’s behind them,” Conway said.
Discontent about the war is evident among lawmakers.
Today, a small group of House members from each party introduced a resolution calling on the president to announce by year’s end a plan for bringing home troops from Iraq and take steps to follow through. Withdrawal would have to start by Oct. 1, 2006, according to the measure.
“After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion,” said one sponsor, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who voted for the war.
Introduced the same day shooting attacks west of Baghdad killed six U.S. troops, the joint resolution is the first such proposal offered by both Democrats and Republicans. In 2002, most Democrats and six House Republicans voted against sending troops to Iraq.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a resolution this week that urges the Bush administration to give Congress a time frame for achieving military goals in Iraq and bringing home troops.
The White House argued that a timetable cannot be considered until Iraq’s army is strong enough. The administration also has said any withdrawal plan would encourage insurgents to wait for foreign troops to leave Iraq.
“Timetables simply send the wrong message,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan said today. “They send the wrong message to the terrorists. They send the wrong message to the Iraqi people. They send the wrong message to our troops who are serving admirably and working to complete an important mission.” Excluding war money, the House bill provides $364 billion for the Pentagon for the 2006 budget year that begins Oct. 1. That amount is about 3 percent greater this year’s base funding. The House bill is about $3 billion less than the president wants for defense.
The measure would fund a 3.1 percent pay raise for the military.
Lawmakers hope it could help entice current and prospective troops at a time when enlistments are lagging.
Bush, in the Pentagon spending proposal he submitted to Congress in February, did not request any money to pay for the wars. The White House insisted it did not yet know how much would be needed for next year – an argument it has used before to omit war costs from its initial budget.
