Democrats to go on offensive as new Congress convenes

As Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as speaker, George Bush's days of enjoying a rubber stamp Congress are truly over. Pelosi has announced that she intends to have a dramatic first hundred hours pushing through a raft of legislation that has been anathema to the Bush administration including an increase in the federal minimum wage and federal funding for stem cell research.

But it is on the subject of Iraq where Bush is likely to feel the strongest heat as some fellow Republicans - facing re-election in 2008 - line up with the Democrats rather than Bush on the subject that will define Bush's Presidency more than any other.

In its first weeks, Congress could be asked to support a White House proposal that would allow the Pentagon to suspend the present restrictions on the call-up of National Guard and reservist troops in order to free up the forces who could be sent to Iraq for a temporary surge.

"It's going to be much tougher for him. He is going to have people who are more aggressive with oversight with what he is doing as an executive," said Judd Legum of the Centre for American Progress, a Democratic thinktank. "He is going to have to deal with these issues and it's going to be fairly constant."

In addition, Mr Bush may face rising criticism from fellow Republicans. As many as 12 Republican senators are said to oppose the idea of a temporary surge of additional US forces for Iraq, the conservative columnist Robert Novak reported. "It's Alice in Wonderland," the columnist quoted the moderate Republican senator Chuck Hagel as saying. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

There is every indication that Bush will ignore the Baker Report and attempt a last throw of the dice by sending up to 30,000 more troops into Iraq.

I was rereading State of Denial yesterday and had forgotten just how much Henry Kissinger is an unofficial part of this White House and just how much influence he has over this particular President.

Kissinger is advising Bush that Vietnam must not be repeated and that the only possible exit strategy is through victory. However, the Kissinger mindset is working from the assumption that victory is possible. There are many of us, myself included, who have come to the conclusion that the war is lost which means that Bush is simply sacrificing more young Americans for a lost cause.

One must never forget that Bush is highly aware that the outcome of this war will define his legacy and that he has said that he will keep fighting it even if he is supported by only Laura and Barney the dog.

The people who Bush is currently listening to - Kissinger, Kristol - are a group who believe that Vietnam could have been won if the US had not lost it's nerve.

Think on that. 58,000 American lives were lost for a country that - when it fell - did not lead to the domino effect for Communism that these people stated was the reason for fighting the war, and yet they are saying that more should have died for that misguided cause. Just as they are now arguing that more should die for the lost cause of Iraq.

Scepticism will abound too at the Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq, due to start on 9 January and run for three weeks. Joe Biden, the panel's Democratic chairman, says he is "totally" opposed to a troop increase, adding that one would be "contrary to the overwhelming body of informed opinion, both by people inside the administration and outside the administration".

Although a 30,000 increase to the existing deployment of 145,000 troops is feasible, by delaying rotation of units and lengthening tours of duty, many senior generals say it could only be temporary, given the existing overstretch of the military. At some point the troops would have to leave, irrespective of the level of violence at the time.

New figures show that 1,930 Iraqi civilians died in December, which was also the deadliest month in two years for US servicemen, taking the lives of 111 soldiers. Since the 2003 invasion, more than 3,000 have been killed and about 25,000 injured. More American troops would merely invite more casualties, critics contend.

The President's new approach also would signal the abandonment, at least temporarily, of the strategy of turning security over to Iraqi forces. This was the policy favoured by General George Casey, the highest-ranked US general in Iraq.

But for all the Pentagon claims that more and more Iraqi units were now trained for the job, the violence has only increased.

General Casey is now likely to be removed, probably within the next two months, while Lt-Gen John Abizaid, the head of Central Command and in overall charge of the Iraq war, is also due to step down.

So Bush will now remove Casey and make him yet another scapegoat for his failed Iraq policy.

When will he be forced to realise that it is the policy itself that has failed rather than it's implementation? The idea of a foreign power, who had imposed sanctions through the United Nations that killed half a million Iraqi infants, invading Iraq and being greeted as "liberators" was always fanciful in the extreme.

The Baker Report attempted to give Bush a face saving way to exit Iraq and it now looks likely that he is going to reject it's findings. Faced with a new Democratic Congress, Bush is likely to portray any opposition to his plans as unpatriotic and harmful to American troops.

However, the person harming the troops is Bush by seeing his own legacy and what is good for the country as indistinguishable from each other. They are actually very different things.

A failed President is implementing a failed policy. And he is doing so against the majority of public opinion.

I hope Pelosi and the Dems never forget that and have the courage to face Bush when he attacks their patriotism and their concern for American troops. Whilst I applaud the Democrats plans to challenge Bush over the minimum wage and stem cell research, it is their position on Iraq on which they will ultimately be judged.

A man who says he will keep fighting a war even if he is only supported by his wife and his dog can hardly be said to be someone with the troops best interests at heart. He is fighting for his own legacy, and no American soldier or Iraqi civilian should be asked to die for such a lost cause.

The Dems need to remember that.

tag: Bush, Iraq, Iraq war, Baker report, Republican Party, James T Baker, Nancy Pelosi