Petraeus and Crocker give only some of the answers

Petraeus and Crocker give only some of the answers

But how? How will the United States maintain and pay for the military commitment that was implied this week by the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Essentially, Petraeus and Crocker told Congress that security in Iraq is somewhat better, but large parts of the country and even Baghdad are not safe; the Iraqi government is improving but still unable to govern effectively; and the Iraqi army, while getting better, is still not really combat capable.

Post-surge gains, Petraeus said, are “fragile and reversible.” Neither Crocker nor Petraeus could or would say when American troops will be leaving, beyond the plan to withdraw five combat brigades by the end of July, leaving 140,000 troops in place. The commanders will then take 45 days for “consolidation and evaluation,” after which they would decide whether to recommend further reduction.

None of this, of course, answers the question of how the United States can continue such levels of troop strength in Iraq , conduct anti-terrorism operations in Afghanistan and remain combat ready for other threats that may face the nation. Those are not questions to be put to Petraeus and Crocker. But they are clearly questions that must be answered by President Bush, either directly or through his secretary of defense.

Congress, which is responsible for appropriating the money needed to pursue the war in Iraq and to provide for the overall security of the nation is obliged to begin asking tougher questions of the administration The cost of the war ranges from outlays of about $1 trillion to projected costs of between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. The higher figures include the long term costs of providing for the needs of hundreds of thousands of veterans, including tens of thousands who have been injured, and the cost of rebuilding stockpiles of equipment and armament.

Treaty question

On a related issue, Congress must make it clear that the administration is not free to enter into a long-term-security agreement with Iraq that is equivalent to a treaty and would presumably bind the next U.S. president to provide soldiers and materiel for Iraq’s security.

During questioning, Crocker acknowledged that the agreement would be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for ratification, but said it would not be submitted to the U.S. Congress because it is an “executive agreement.”

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden told Crocker: “You need to do much more than inform the Congress, you need the permission of the Congress if you’re going to bind the next president of the United States in anything you agree to.” The Constitution clearly requires the advice and consent of the Senate to ratify a treaty, and an “executive agreement” that binds the United States to the defense of another sovereign nation is a treaty by any other name.

By the time he leaves office, President Bush will have presided over the war in Afghanistan for 75 months and the war in Iraq for 58 months. These are the third and fourth longest wars in U.S. history, behind only the Revolutionary War, which went on for 100 months and the Vietnam War, 116 months.

With or without a treaty, President Bush has tied the next president to a foreign policy that could easily keep combat troops on the ground and in harm’s way in Afghanistan and Iraq for an additional three or four years, which would make these the longest wars in U.S. history. Mercifully, the casualties will never approach those of World War II in number, but the monetary cost, when factoring the damage this war has inflicted on the economy, could exceed that of the World War II.

The administration has adopted the position that as a wartime commander-in-chief, President Bush has virtually unchecked power. That’s not true, and it is past time that Congress demands answers to questions that it is constitutionally bound to ask.