Congress Ramps Up Fight Against Permanent Iraq Bases

Antiwar Democrats in Congress have failed in almost every one of their attempts to reverse the Bush administration's Iraq policy. However, they are now pursuing what many call a winnable objective: resisting the establishment of a permanent US presence in Iraq.

In late November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a "Declaration of Principles" setting the stage for long-term, open-ended US military and economic involvement in Iraq.

Later, in a January signing statement attached to a defense policy bill, Bush declared that he would disregard a ban on permanent US military bases in Iraq.

Since then, Bush and Maliki have been moving forward with negotiations on the terms of their agreement, with conversations taking place "largely in secret," according to Sameer Dossani, director of 50 Years Is Enough: US Network for Global Economic Justice. The administration says that a more definitive agreement will be reached "within six months," according to Dossani.

Yet, two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration would not seek permanent bases in Iraq, contradicting the sentiments of Bush's signing statement and the Declaration of Principles.

The administration's denial doesn't indicate a change in strategy, according to Erik Leaver, policy outreach director for Foreign Policy in Focus, but it does indicate an avoidance of confrontation and a fear of public opinion - elements that bode well for a Congress-led change in course.

While the Bush-Maliki talks move shakily forward, progressive Democrats are taking advantage of the Declaration of Principles' tenuousness to introduce initiatives limiting executive power and curbing long-term plans for Iraq involvement. They hope that, while efforts to end the war will likely flop, Congress might succeed in preventing it from lasting forever.

Democratic Congress members are under pressure to produce some change in Iraq policies before the November elections, since public opposition to the war was a key factor in the 2006 elections' slew of Democratic victories.

Forty-six members of Congress recently sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, demanding transparency on the issue of permanent bases.

"We would like to learn precisely what is being done to make certain that permanent military bases are not being planned or constructed in Iraq," said the letter, penned by Rep. Barbara Lee.

Lee recently introduced a bill to prevent Bush from signing any agreement emerging from the Declaration of Principles without consulting Congress. A parallel bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, would limit the scope of an ongoing US presence in Iraq.

Since November, attacks on the Bush-Maliki agreement's constitutionality have mounted. Bill Delahunt, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, has held a series of hearings on the legality of the Declaration of Principles. During the most recent Delahunt hearing, experts almost universally concluded that the agreement violates the Constitution, since Congress was not consulted in the process of its approval.

The State Department declined to testify at any of the three Delahunt hearings, though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice agreed last week to appear at a future hearing.

The controversy over the limits of presidential power could generate a bipartisan effort to take back Congressional control, according to Leaver.

"Republicans have a vested interest in this issue, too," he said. "The next president might very well be a Democrat."

Leaver admits that such cooperation might be a stretch, but is not out of the question. After all, the first time a provision passed banning permanent bases in Iraq, it was under a Republican Congress.