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."
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS