Of course the way to achieve withdrawal, or the favored euphemism, redeployment, is to defund the continued deployment in Iraq. My preferred approach is to set a date certain for when funding will cease, 9 to 12 months from the date of announcement of said Congressional policy.
But there are other rhetorical and procedural ways to achieve this. Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman and Congressman David Wu describe another:
The real debate on Iraq begins with Congress's consideration of the military budget. The president has requested almost three quarters of a trillion dollars to fund the military through September 30, 2008. More than $150 billion is earmarked for Iraq.
We have already spent $350 billion there, so the president's proposal pushes our Iraqi costs close to the half trillion mark. At the same time, he is demanding a $100 billion cut in health care funding, falling most heavily on poor children, while he maintains his $200 billion annual tax cut, channeled mostly to millionaires.
It is Congress's job to restore fiscal balance first, by placing an overall limit on Iraq war expenditures. Congress should limit this president to spending half a trillion dollars on the Iraq war -- and no more.
. . . In taking this step, Congress wouldn't be initiating a grand constitutional battle over the war powers of the president. It would be exerting its constitutional power of the purse and playing its traditional role as a check on another branch of government, rebalancing runaway programs that threaten to overwhelm our fiscal health and national priorities.
150 billion dollars would fund the war for approxiately 12 months. In essence, it sets a date certain for ending funding for the Iraq Debacle. I do not see any substantive difference from what I have suggested. If this is easier for the Democrats in Congress to swallow, then do it this way. The result is the same.
Ackerman and Wu say:
Limiting all future expenditures in Iraq to $150 billion, tops, can in no way harm our troops in the field. It responsibly carries out the will of the American people: that the president, with professional military advice, should be unwinding this war and planning a prudent departure for friendlier nearby countries or home.
. . . Even the administration concedes that Congress has the constitutional power to cut off funds. The challenge is to use this power creatively -- both protecting the troops and requiring the president to end his war on his watch. The key point is to establish the principle that President Bush is responsible for leading America out of the impasse he created. . . . We have fixed our ceiling at a level which assures that all troops will leave Iraq by inauguration day of 2009.
. . . Our "half-trillion dollar solution" is a choice of the lesser evil. There are no good options left. . . .
This is an interesting rhetorical sleight of hand. If this goes down easier for the Dems, then I am all for it. If the Democrats want to end the war in Iraq, then they will find a way that works to do it.
