Stop the Escalation in Iraq

To: Legislators, Staff, and Interested Parties

From: Progressive States Network

Re: Preventing Escalation in Iraq

This LegAlert discusses the President's proposed escalation in Iraq, its implications for states and the nation, Congress's options to prevent the escalation, and the role states can play.

In This LegAlert:

• The Implications of Escalation
• Congress's Options to Prevent Escalation
• The States' Role
• Model Resolution Language
• More Resources

The Implications of Escalation

On January 10, President George W. Bush announced his intention to escalate the War in Iraq by sending an additional 21,500 troops to the nation in an effort to salvage the failed occupation. The condemndation has been swift and nearly universal.

The Public Opposes Escalation: Polling makes it clear that the public is deeply opposed to the President's escalation plan. A CNN poll conducted the day after the President's announcement found that fewer than 30% of Americans favored the move, while 50% were strongly opposed (an additional 16% were strongly opposed). The same poll revealed that 60% of Americans thought Congress should move to prevent the escalation.

Other numbers are equally strong. 70% of Americans do not believe that escalation will help stabilize Iraq, according to an Associated Press poll taken shortly before the President's speech. The public is overwhelmingly opposed to this escalation. And they are not alone -- they are joined by military experts.

Military Experts Oppose Escalation: The Washington Post reported last month that initial escalation plans drew opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff who thought the strategy gained support "in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military."

Among those potential disadvantages are the breaking of the active duty military, reserves, and National Guard. A number of military experts recently told FOXNews that an escalation would hurt the military's readiness -- perhaps fatally.

The impact on National Guardsmen and women is clear -- another deployment burdens families and worklife, as made clear by the Los Angeles Times. The vast majority of Guard and Reserve forces have already served 12-18 month missions. Being redeployed to Iraq for another extended tour will encourage these citizen soldiers to pass when the time comes to reenlist. That decision will hit hard at home in the states that often rely on the Guard for emergency response.

Escalation is Flawed "Tactically, Strategically, Militarily." Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has criticized the proposed escalation as "complete folly" asking, "Are we going to pacify Baghdad? Are we going to break the militia's stronghold? Are we going to use these troops to propel or force a settlement between the Shias and the Sunnis? What's the objective of it? I will guarantee that there's going to be a lot more American casualties. And there's going to be a lot more animosity by the Iraqis."

Congress's Options to Prevent Escalation

The Congress has a long history of using the power of the purse to shape military deployments. Specifically, as experts at the Center for American Progress noted recently:

[P]ast Congresses have chosen among several different policy levers to guide U.S. national security policy as it relates to the deployment of American troops. Broadly speaking, the Congress can:

• Condition, limit, or shape the timing and nature of troop deployments and the missions they are authorized to undertake
• Cap the size of military deployments; and
• Prohibit funding for existing or prospective deployments.

Congress' use of its appropriation power is a classic example of checks-and-balances within the Constitution. And while the Administration has cautioned against micromanagement, it has become clear that the time has come for the Board of Directors to intervene.

Fortunately, proposals are emerging. Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has introduced legislation that would require -- as a condition of funding -- that President Bush receive Congress's approval for any escalation before it is undertaken.

The States' Role

Other than the far-reaching impacts to National Guards, citizens, taxpayers, and the world, what does all of this have to do with state governments, one might ask. State governments have no direct say over foreign or military policy and, ever since direct election of Senators, have little indirect say as well.

But states continue to have far-reaching power in terms of changing the terms of debate and discussion. Most recently, states have helped keep the Darfur crisis on the front pages through divestment actions. The divestment actions follow in the footsteps of state and local moves against apartheid as part of a larger global movement.

In 2005, state leaders weighed in on CAFTA, even though trade agreements ultimately fall under the federal government's purview.

What is the test case for when state governments should feel comfortable weighing on this traditionally federal domain? In some cases -- like Darfur and apartheid -- the cause has been a moral imperative to speak out against overwhelming injustice. In the case of CAFTA, state leaders spoke out because the agreement actually undermined state governments.

In the case of escalation in Iraq, the policy threatens to "fatally" weaken the National Guard. This fact alone justifies intervention in decision-making by state governments.

Model Resolution Language

For help with this language, press releases, grassroots support, or any other facets of a legislative campaign to oppose escalation, please let us know how we can be of service: iraq@progressivestates.org.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING ESCALATION IN IRAQ

WHEREAS, The President has proposed an escalation in the number of US troops deployed in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, U.S. involvement in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers and the wounding and disabling of more than 22,000 U.S. military personnel to date; and

WHEREAS, This proposed escalation will further extend National Guard tours in Iraq, that the costs to the states of the call-up of National Guard members for deployment in Iraq have been significant, as reckoned in lost lives, combat injuries and psychic trauma, disruption of family life, financial hardship for individuals, families and businesses, interruption of careers and damage to the fabric of civic life in our communities; and

WHEREAS, The American troops have valiantly upheld their duty in Iraq under dire circumstances; and

WHEREAS, More than $357 billion has been appropriated by Congress to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq to date, money that could fund desperately needed education, health care, housing, nutrition and other social services in our communities in the United States or humanitarian assistance abroad; and

WHEREAS, Previous budgets that have prioritized Iraq have led to cuts in critical block grants for states and have increased the federal debt, which compounded by interest payments, will likely lead to even larger cuts in funding for critical needs in the States; and

WHEREAS, Polls show that the vast majority of Americans do not support increasing the number of troops in Iraq; and

WHEREAS, Most military experts oppose escalation in Iraq and press reports indicate that even the Joint Chiefs of Staff have opposed such a strategy; and

WHEREAS, Legal experts on all sides have determined that Congress has not only broad authority, but a long tradition of limiting escalation or forcing redeployment of troops through the Constitutionally-designate power of the purse.

BE IT RESOLVED, That the state of ________, on behalf of its citizens, urges that in a period when the Iraq Study Group, leading military and diplomatic officials and allies around the world are calling for a reduction in troops and withdrawal of the US from Iraq, the United States government should not escalate its involvement in Iraq or increase troop levels; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That, at a minimum, the President should obtain explicit approval from Congress if he wants to send more American troops to Iraq.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the President from spending taxpayer dollars on an escalation in Iraq unless he first seeks Congressional approval.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a suitable copy of this resolution shall be sent to George W. Bush, President of the United States, to the Congressional delegation of ________state, and to the United States Congress.

Conclusion

These coming weeks are vital. We as a nation will decide whether to embrace an escalation that is little more than grasping at straws -- more troops sent in to become targets and still no strategy for victory. The time has long since passed when silence on these issues was acceptable. Failure to act now will have dire consequences.

State-by-State Data

Coalition Casualty County: US Fatalities by State

Associated Press, U.S. Reserve Activations by State

National Priorities Project, Cost of the War by State, City, and County & Budget Tradeoffs