Bush, Congress reach for war's reins

The showdown this week between President Bush and Congress on war funding is a constitutional issue over who controls the military.

Page 2 of 3

Page 1 | 2 | Page 3

"In short, there is no evidence that the escalation is working – and it should come as no surprise, because, as General Petraeus has said, the ultimate solution in Iraq is a political one, not a military one," Senator Reid said in a speech Monday.

In closed briefings before the full House and Senate, Petraeus will have an opportunity to clarify whether such remarks justify the current impasse – or have been misconstrued. Republicans also invoke Patraeus as a reason for stripping withdrawal language from the bill. They note that it's defeatist for the Congress to mandate a pullout before the general – unanimously confirmed in the Senate on Jan. 26 – has time to carry out his new strategy. Democrats cite Petraeus as authority for mandating diplomatic and political benchmarks – with consequences.

"If anyone can pull this off, it's David Petraeus," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, who testified last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee on military readiness.

Petraeus stands for the view that "weapons are a means to an end, but the end is to shape politics," he says. "After the Rumsfeld era, we've rediscovered that the technocentric view of war – that saw human conflict as an engineering problem – is wrong."

Whether Petraeus can shift hearts and minds on Capitol Hill is not yet clear. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say that the vote count, as it stands, is not sufficient to override a presidential veto. But a veto also doesn't get the president the funding he needs to conduct the war.

In a vote to test House sentiment in a standoff with the president, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R) of California on April 19 proposed that House conferees insist on maintaining a mandatory withdrawal date in the final defense spending bill. The motion, which passed 215-199, was supported by only one Republican and lost nine Democratic votes. A two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate is needed to overturn a presidential veto. But a veto also doesn't get the president the funding he needs to conduct the war.

1 | Page 2 | 3 | Next Page

Related Stories
Get Monitor stories by e-mail:
(Your e-mail address will be protected by csmonitor.com's tough privacy policy.)
(Mary Knox Merrill/Staff)
EDITOR'S PICK Five cities that will rise in the New Economy
From Seattle to Huntsville, Ala., five cities are poised to prosper in the New Economy because of exports, innovation, clean technology, and healthcare.

In Pictures:
Get ready for gridlock
POLITICS Patchwork Nation
The American voter beyond red and blue

Daily podcast

Monitor Reports

Discussions with Monitor reporters from around the world


Today

Peter Grier

The Monitor's Peter Grier talks with reporter Ron Scherer about how Black Friday will effect the economy this year.




Making a difference
Making a Difference

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change. See how individuals are making a difference, finding solutions, overcoming adversity, and giving back globally.

Batdorj Gongor convinces residents to set up savings groups as a way of teaching them the power they gain by banding together in neighborhoods.

Lee Lawrence

People making a difference: Batdorj Gongor

In Mongolia, he shows former nomads how working together benefits everyone.