WH Says Funding Cut Could Prolong Iraq War

In a new line of argument, the White House cautioned Congress that any funding cuts in aid for Iraq could wind up lengthening the war effort there. This is the first time that the White House has used this reasoning in its annual battle with the Democratic-controlled Congress over war funding and could reflect a new confidence within the Administration about the eventual outcome of the war. In past funding debates, the Administration has focused its lobbying efforts around the strategic argument of completing the mission in Iraq and the moral imperative for Congress to provide resources to troops in harm's way. But with the success of the troop surge both at reducing violence in Iraq and shoring up the Iraqi government, the Administration sees a light at the end of the tunnel and is asking Congress not to throw the war's trajectory off track.

The rising cost of fuel and the Iraqi government's expected windfall of some $70 billion this year from oil exports are driving the Congressional push to recoup some of the costs of operations in Iraq. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) said that there needs to be, "honest-to-goodness pressure," placed on the Iraqi government to convince it that it needs to do more for itself and not continue to rely on the largesse of the United States. But in terms of reconstruction projects, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told Congress earlier this month that the United States had largely stopped funding large scale projects. "The era of U.S. major infrastructure projects is over," he said.

Lawmakers are considering measures that would require Iraq to reimburse the United States for fuel costs, require Iraq to fund the training and equipping of its security forces, and bar U.S. funding of any more major construction projects in the country. While the White House did not reject the ideas out of hand, it stressed that funding of certain projects by the United States served the purpose of getting U.S troops out of Iraq faster. "[I]n the interest of speed and efficiency to accomplish our mission, it's better for us to spend the money," White House Spokesman Tony Fratto said. But at the same time, Fratto said that the White House agreed with the sentiment on Capitol Hill that the purse strings for Iraq should be loosened a little.

"I think we're in the same place in that the Iraqis should be doing more. But I think people are neglecting the fact that they really are doing more."

Democrats in Congress have a winning argument; and it is brought about, ironically, by the success of the troop surge, something that most Democrats deny has taken place. When Iraq was in chaos and paralyzed by violence, everybody acknowledged that the security situation made it impossible for the Iraqi government to operate effectively on behalf of the people of Iraq. But now that violence has largely been brought under control, and the government has more firmly established legitimacy throughout the country, it is naturally incumbent on the government to do more.

To make the point stick, Democrats will have to acknowledge that the troop surge has had its intended effects of not only limiting violence, but giving the Iraqi government breathing room to get organized and get to work. That is dangerous for Democrats, whose anti-war base is unwilling to accept that Iraq is showing signs of improvement, let alone view the troop surge as a success. Democrats may be wise to heed the Administration's warning that cutting funding too deeply could have the effect of keeping troops in Iraq longer.