SENDING BAGHDAD THE BILL

Last summer, expectations were high that a change in strategy in Iraq was possible. There was a growing consensus among the majority of Democrats and moderate Republicans that the U.S. mission should become more supportive and less combat-driven. A bill to force such a change was never brought to the Senate floor as Democratic leaders pushed legislation demanding withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Nearly a year later, there has been no change in the American mission.

This spring, Congress has an opportunity to belatedly and less dramatically begin to change that by restricting how U.S. money is spent in Iraq. As important as the money is the message that such a move sends.

Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously endorsed a measure, negotiated by Sens. Susan Collins and Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, to require that the Iraqi government fund more of the military operations there. The language is now part of the Defense Department authorization bill. It may be appended to an emergency spending bill for the Iraq war since that will move through Congress more quickly. A similar measure is being considered in the House.

The bill passed by the committee prohibits spending U.S. funds on large reconstruction projects and encourages the Iraqi government to pay for smaller ones. It also requires the Iraqi government to use its own money to train and equip the country’s security forces and sets up a fund to pay for other expenses.

Beyond the money, the measure is meant to let the government in Baghdad know that the U.S. commitment to protect and rebuild Iraq is not limitless.

“It introduces accountability that has been lacking when the Iraqis have not been paying the bill,” Sen. Collins said, adding that this accountability will push the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their security and rebuilding so that U.S. troops can transition to a supporting role.

She dismisses complaints that the measure punishes the Iraqis for the U.S. invasion and occupation by noting that the government in Baghdad built its budget on the assumption that $45 billion in revenues would be available; it now has $70 billion to spend because of the rapid rise in the price of oil.

In his quarterly report, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, reported that since Jan. 1, Iraq’s oil income has exceeded $18 billion.

The biggest threat to the funding measure is a push from the White House to allow the president to waive restrictions on U.S. reconstruction funds in the interest of national security. This would gut the requirements.

Building support for this legislation is key to ensuring this summer doesn’t end like last summer with no change in the U.S. commitment in Iraq.