Iraq Funding Negotiations: Analysis

[nodular]

The framework for negotiations is set

Next, Bush will veto the Iraq Funding Bill, I believe it is supposed to happen on Thursday. Next will be a complicated negotiating process. Let's call it a 3-cornered negotiation between Bush, Democratic legislators, and Republican legislators.

I note that, in advance, a sort of double good-cop/bad-cop structure has been set up. Bush and Pelosi are the good cops; they talk to each other and sometimes act nice. Cheney and Reid are the bad cops; they fight.

This set-up can be considered a (possibly subconscious) cooperative venture between the 2 sides. It will help the negotiating process by tending to everyone's thalamus and limbic system, what I call the "reptile brain" and the "mammal brain" (I know these terms are inaccurate, but I find them useful anyway.) We need to exercise our instincts and emotions before clearing room for the cerebral cortex to operate (facilitate "thinking," the operation of the "human brain.")

The negotiation will probably succeed.

These will be difficult negotiations. At the beginning of difficult negotiations, it is hard to see the end point. Some people tend to doubt a compromise can be reached and wonder what will happen if there is no compromise. However, I think it likely (agreeing, I suspect, with most experts) that a way around the impasse will be found. I do think it is possible that there will be no compromise, but I will not deal with that possibility here

Time, Conditional Withdrawal, Criteria for Progress, Who Evaluates?

I'm going to take a guess that the final bill (passed by the House and Senate and signed by Bush) will hinge on these four factors. Like the current bill, the final bill will have a "withdrawal start date" designating the beginning of withdrawal---if it happens. But unlike the current bill, this withdrawal date will be conditional---conditioned on whether or not a certain amount of progress has been made in Iraq.

In addition, the withdrawal date will be later that the October, 2007 date in the current bill. That date apparently derives from the date the administration initially set for the end of the surge. Since the current bill funds the surge, it cannot simultaneously mandate a withdrawal during the surge. Already, the administration has said "privately" (a conversation mentioned on the front page of the NYT) that the surge will need to be extended to January, since the schedule has slipped. The October date is an open ploy in the negotiation, sure to be slipped back to January, 2008 at the earliest.

The start of the withdrawal will be canceled if the Criteria for Progress are met. These would include political criteria that Iraq's government must meet, including passing a bill to divvy up oil revenues among the provinces of Iraq. Another criteria will be a reduction of violence in Iraq. The language of this criteria will be full of magic (but I suspect cynical DU'ers will use another more vulgar term.)

Contained in the bill will be some reference to the umpire who "makes the call." More magic required. (To ensure that our well-paid public servants earn their keep, I must leave the details of such features blank---allowing them to labor their way to a conclusion. And it will, no doubt, be a laborious process.)

The final bill will not get the US out of Iraq

This is disappointing but not surprising. Most people realize the Democrats will probably have to elect a President in 2008 to end the war. (Again, I believe any Democrat elected, including Hillary, will get us out quickly.)

Why I believe a compromise will be found

The Democrats do not want to "de-fund" the war at this time. Despite all the anti-war sentiment, this still looks like a risky move politically. It is, unambiguously, their constitutional right to do so. Implicit in the fact that all revenues come from the legislature is that the legislature has the option of terminating a war.

But this is a messy, politically dangerous way to do it. It would be better to elect a Democratic President to make the decision as commander-in-chief.

Bush, on the other hand, might find such a situation (no bill) acceptable. Iraq is bound to end in a debacle one way or another, and it is his fault. But with "no bill," Bush can do some hand-wringing and try to shift the blame for the situation to the Democrats. Shoot the messenger.

However, there is a third party to the negotiations---Republican legislators. "No bill" would not look as good to them as it would to Bush. Already, they are balanced on a knife's edge between lingering core-Republican support for the war and growing dissatisfaction among independents, moderate Republicans, and any Democrats who may have voted for them last time. They will force Bush to agree to a compromise by threatening to otherwise "jump ship" and facilitate an override vote.