Democrats and War

WASHINGTON — Antiwar Democrats in Congress stood united in opposition to the last president's war policies, but they aren't so sure about the battle plans of the new president they helped elect.

Now they face a tricky decision on whether to support Barack Obama's request for more than $80 billion to prosecute the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama, as he promised in the campaign, is revamping policy on both wars, slowly withdrawing forces from Iraq, and stepping up military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan, with 21,000 additional troops in the next few months, to blunt recent gains by the Taliban.

But to many liberals, the pace of withdrawal from Iraq — with all troops due to leave by the end of 2011 — is fragile and too slow, and the buildup in Afghanistan has no exit strategy and could become an expensive quagmire.

"Afghanistan is such a huge mess, no one can get out right away, but there are real concerns as this goes on," said Rep. Sam Farr, a Salinas Democrat.

On Thursday, the House is scheduled to vote on an $83.4 billion supplemental spending bill to cover the costs of the wars into 2010. The Obama administration and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, have pledged that this is the last special spending bill, and that future war expenditures will be part of the regular budget.

"My message to my members is: This is it," Pelosi said. "There won't be any more war supplementals."

That


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
has assuaged some liberal critics, but others worry that with no benchmarks in the bill to measure progress and with no exit strategy for Afghanistan, where U.S. forces have been fighting since 2001, the conflicts are open-ended and Congress is not demanding accountability.

"The administration wants as few strings attached to this bill as possible," said Tom Andrews, a former Maine congressman who heads Win Without War, a coalition of 40 different groups that is seeking a "no" vote on the bill.

On Iraq, Farr was able to include a provision in the bill requiring the Defense Department to report to Congress every 90 days on progress toward Obama's stated goal of having combat brigades out by the end of August 2010 and all forces out before 2012.

"Mission creep is my fear," said Farr, who worries that military commanders will try to slow down the withdrawal if there is a new surge of violence in Iraq. Farr has not decided how he will vote on the supplemental bill.

For many members, Afghanistan may be the bigger worry. In a recent article in Politico, three leaders of the Progressive Caucus in the House — Barbara Lee of Oakland, Lynn Woolsey of Santa Rosa and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles — warn that despite Obama's efforts at changing policy, he is not going far enough to demilitarize the effort.

"Adding these troops and not having an exit strategy means this just digs us into a deeper hole," said Lee, who opposes the bill.

About 90 percent of the spending in the bill is for military purposes, and many Democrats want a much greater proportion directed to humanitarian aid and reconstruction. Rep. Mike Honda, a Campbell Democrat who helped organize forums on Afghanistan and Pakistan for the Progressive Caucus, said he would like to see about 80 percent devoted to civilian work.

Some powerful liberals in the House have been caustic in their criticism of the spending plan. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., called the funding request "embarrassingly naive," the result of bad advice from military leaders. Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said Obama had about a year to show progress in Afghanistan, and any funding after that is in doubt.

But liberal Democrats are also strong supporters of Obama and are reluctant to vote against him on an early test of his national security strategy.

"Members are conflicted," Andrews said. "Obama is their guy and there's pressure to provide him what he needs to succeed. But there's a discomfort that this is a one-way ticket to a quagmire."

That conflict is reflected in the views of Bay Area peace activists. Mal Burnstein, 75, of Berkeley praises Obama, but pushed hard for the California Democratic Party to endorse a resolution at its recent convention calling for rapid withdrawal from the two wars.

"We didn't get it, but we won't stop calling for it," Burnstein said. "I'm relatively happy with Obama, but that doesn't mean we will agree on everything."

Most Democrats and Republicans will probably support the supplemental spending bill. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, House minority leader, backs it, and there is wide support in the Senate.

As for reluctant liberals, Pelosi has this message: "The president has refocused our efforts in Afghanistan. He has a path to ending the war in Iraq that will happen. So we have a plan for both places and this is the president's request to fund that. I hope you can vote for it."

Contact Frank Davies at fdavies@mercurynews.com or 202-662-8921