US President George W. Bush's announcement that he is sending more troops to Iraq has set the scene for the first major test of wills between his Republican administration and the new Democrat-controlled Congress. Both sides are digging in.
The political stakes raised by Bush's prime-time television address this week were high on both sides.
Democrats, who came to power in midterm elections two months ago in large part because of growing public opposition to the war, must walk a fine line between criticizing Bush's plans and appearing to be obstructionists or undermining the military.
And they presently rule Congress with insufficient numbers to block Bush's plan.
For Bush, the decision to send more troops to Iraq -- rather than begin a withdrawal of combat forces as recommended last month by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- is a huge gamble.
If it fails, he will have few, if any, options left.
Defying public opinion polls and the newly empowered Democratic leadership, Bush on Wednesday moved to send 21,500 more US troops to Iraq and said it was a mistake not to have had more forces there previously.
He recognized the risks ahead.
"Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties," Bush said in Wednesday's address to the nation.
But, he added, "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."
Democrats served notice that they would challenge his plan, with aggressive hearings that begin on Thursday and votes in both the House of Representatives and Senate in the coming days on a nonbinding measure opposing any increase in troops.
"American voters expect us to help get us out of Iraq," said Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential hopeful in the run-up to next year's election.
Congress voted in October 2002 by wide margins to authorize Bush to take military action in Iraq. That authority stands.
Since they now run Congress, even though by thin majorities, Democrats also now share with the president some responsibility over the unpopular war.
Despite their vows to carefully scrutinize Bush's troop increase, their near-term options are limited.
While it is true that Congress controls the government's purse strings, politically about the most it can do is hold hearings and pass symbolic resolutions.
If, even with the help of some Republicans, Congress is able to pass legislation, such as that proposed this week by Senator Edward Kennedy, a senior Democrat, to require Bush to get congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq, Bush will surely veto it.
And, given the slim margin of Democratic control, such a veto would almost certainly be sustained.
"The Democrats may control Congress but they can't block the president this time without potentially being accused of losing the war. I think an awful lot of this is staging for the next time," the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
For Bush, many dangers lurk in the new plan.
The new troops might not be enough to stabilize the country. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki might not rise to Bush's challenge to do more in controlling sectarian violence and shutting down private militias. The new US troops could present more targets to militants.
"We have to succeed. We must succeed. The consequences of failure are catastrophic in the region," said Senator John McCain, a 2008 presidential hopeful who has long advocated more troops.
Furthermore, Bush risks losing more and more Republican support, which in turn would lessen his influence in his last two years in office. Next week's votes are, in part, a strategy to divide Republicans by forcing them to take a public stand on the war.
"At this point, the battle lines have been drawn pretty deeply. And the concrete is setting," said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University. "I regard this as a last gasp for the president to try to get a successful resolution of the Iraq quagmire."
Both parties are divided on what to do next.
More and more Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bush and the war.
And Democrats are divided on how far to go in fighting Bush's plan or in pressing for troop withdrawals, even as the party's liberal base pressures them to do more to bring troops home.
"If the question is whether Congress would cut off funds, the answer is no. But you had an election in November that was widely interpreted as a rejection of the president's war policy," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, an arms control advocacy group.
"While Americans are not sure about how to get out, and only a small proportion back immediate withdrawal, they certainly aren't inclined to support a new increase, an escalation," Isaacs said.
Before his speech, Bush personally briefed both Democratic and Republican leaders on details of his plan. The leaders emerged in agreement on just one thing: that Americans are understandably skeptical and that the war so far has gone badly.
Then, they respectively sounded what are sure to be battle themes for the coming days.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Leader Nancy Pelosi renewed their opposition to additional troops. But, Reid said, "We as senators have had no ability to have any input in the president's position on this."
House Minority Leader John Boehner said the plan might be distasteful to some but he called it "our best shot at victory in Iraq."
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS