$87b sought to fight terror

Bush says `central front' in Iraq could require long, costly commitment

By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 9/8/2003

WASHINGTON -- In a prime-time television address last night, President Bush asked Congress for $87 billion to help fight terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and called for troops and money from other nations, which he described as critical components to success in the ongoing war on terrorism.

In a speech very different in style and tone from his last prime-time address, on May 1, when he landed on an aircraft carrier and triumphantly declared that major military operations in Iraq were over, Bush last night talked of sacrifices and gave no clear indication of how long American troops would be in harm's way or how much the war would cost in future years. "Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places," he said.

Calling Iraq the "central front" on terror, he said "we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom, and to make our own nation more secure."

Members of Congress have been demanding a more detailed explanation of the administration's plans for the war-torn country, and the president's speech portrayed the situation in Iraq as more

dire than administration officials have previously done. Key members of Congress were receptive to Bush's remarks even as they cautioned that a request for such a large amount of money would not be rubber-stamped into law.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Armed Services Committee, said he will insist that the administration provide specifics on how the money will be used.

"We are losing American lives every day," he said after the speech. "I had hoped to hear acknowledgment from the president of our failures in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the administration's concrete plans for solving them with our allies and through the United Nations."

Against the backdrop of such demands, Bush announced that he will seek a broader role in the rebuilding of Iraq for the United Nations, a significant shift for his administration. The speech, however, did not indicate the administration was willing to cede leadership of either the military or reconstruction efforts to the UN. Instead, Bush compared America's role in 21st-century Iraq to that of the United States after World War II, working for years to rebuild defeated Japan and Germany.

"We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace," he said. "America today accepts the challenges of helping the Iraqi people in the same sprit -- for their sake, and our own."

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam War veteran, said many questions remain on the assistance other UN countries may provide. "What would be their responsibilities?" Hagel, a Republican, asked on CNN. "How much economic, political responsibility would they have for their troops in return for their involvement?"

Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Bush offered an importantly sober assessment of what the American commitment to Iraq needs to be.

"He leveled with the American people that it's going to cost tens of billions of dollars and 100,000-plus troops for a long time," Biden said on CNN.

Biden added that the fact that Bush didn't mention the search for weapons of mass destruction was immaterial. "The truth of the matter is we're almost beyond that" because the situation in Iraq is so serious and American credibility has already been committed.

His May 1 speech has served as Exhibit A for critics who say that bravado and pride, not diplomacy, have driven the administration's policy in Iraq. Democrats running for the presidential nomination have excoriated Bush for what they say is a lack of planning and foresight in Iraq.

Since May 1, more Americans have died in Iraq than were killed during the months of heavy fighting.

National polls taken over the the past few weeks indicated that Bush's job approval rating has fallen back to pre-Sept. 11, 2001, levels, when just over half the American public believed he was doing a good job.

That level of support pales in comparison to the soaring popularity he enjoyed after ordering US forces into Afghanistan to root out terrorists and try to capture Osama bin Laden, and into Iraq to topple the regime of President Saddam Hussein. Coupled with an anemic economic recovery that features little job creation, Bush's Iraq policies have reinforced the view of his opponents that he can be beaten in next year's election.

Some of the strongest critics of Bush's policies in Iraq, however, have come from his own party.

Senator John S. McCain of Arizona, who

led a congressional delegation to Iraq last month and said that more money and soldiers are needed to stabilize and rebuild the country. Hagel pushed the administration to give the UN a larger role.

McCain and Hagel also suggested Bush lay out in clear terms to the American public what the stakes are in Iraq and why spending billions there now, at a time of soaring budget deficits in the United States, is important.

Biden offered a glimpse of the political pitfalls that could await Bush's $87 billion request. He suggested that Congress might consider asking wealthy Americans to forgo tax cuts they would receive because of previous administration policies.

"I don't know whether that's the way we're going to do this, but we're either going to make the deficit close to $600 billion or we're not going to spend this money," he said. "And we have no choice. We must, we must keep this commitment in Iraq."

Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called on the administration to submit a four- or five-year budget, spelling out the costs of operations in Iraq. Administration officials had refused to embrace that strategy, saying instead that the costs of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq are not certain.

With the death toll from violence in Iraq rising steadily, however, and members of Congress back in Washington asking tough questions, that position has become increasingly tough to hold.

Late last week, unconfirmed news reports about administration plans to seek $60 billion in supplemental funding for Iraq were met in Congress with new demands for more information.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who sits on the Senate Appropriations and Intelligence committees, reacted with frustration to those reports.

"Any supplemental should be delayed until we have a clear plan from the administration," she said. "How much is it going to cost? How many additional personnel are needed? The plan is vague. The Senate and the House are entitled to know what the numbers are."

Several Democrats have said they believe the Bush administration has deliberately held back the costs of Iraqi operations because laying out detailed estimates now would prove that the White House underestimated the price tag.