Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Politics

Iraq drumbeat not just about troops

Vote after vote fails to reduce U.S. forces, but the efforts keep a dicey issue under Republicans' noses.

By WES ALLISON, Times Staff Writer
Published September 21, 2007

WASHINGTON - The Senate's best chance for passing a bill aimed at changing troop levels in Iraq crumbled this week after key Republicans refused to help.

Then the Democratic leader and other liberals lost big on a measure to cut funding for the war by June.

And in the marquee event of the weeklong wrangle over the war, Senate Democrats have abandoned a moderate plan to set a nonbinding goal for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in favor of a hard deadline. It also is likely to fail when it comes to a vote this morning.

From afar, it's a reasonable question for the Democrats: Why bother?

Like spawning salmon crashing into a dam, the party's Senate leadership continues to call votes on measures to change the course of the war, knowing they can't win.

But politically and even practically, the theater on the Senate floor this week played an important role for the Democrats, providing a cudgel to use on vulnerable Republicans while assuring the party's influential antiwar wing that they're committed to trying to end the war.

As several senators noted last week, process also can yield progress, despite a dearth of victories for the Democrats in Congress on the war.

Setting a deadline for withdrawal would have been a ridiculous proposition just eight months ago, they note. Now it's part of every discussion.

"That's why you've got to keep pushing this, but push it with clarity," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a presidential contender who says he will accept nothing short of a deadline for leaving Iraq.

"You don't have to win the vote to make a difference."

The strategy does come with risks. Polls show Americans clearly want out, but not at any price. And continuing to push bills that Republicans won't support saps the oxygen from attempts at consensus that President Bush may feel compelled to consider.

"Insofar as the effort is to set a rigid timetable, I don't think that's helpful. It's not going to happen," said Lee Hamilton, the respected co-chairman of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. "Every time you have a vote on it, you increase the divisions. It has merit as a political point. ... From a policy standpoint, I don't get it."

Eyes on the Senate

With Democrats in firm control of the U.S. House, the real fight over Iraq is in the 100-member Senate, where the Democrats have only a two-vote majority and 60 votes are needed to avoid a filibuster.

For the past week, the goal was to use amendments on an annual defense bill to dial back the U.S. mission on Iraq. The first, by Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., would have required troops to get the same amount of time home as they spend in Iraq, and it effectively would have cut the number of troops serving there.

Though once thought to have a good chance of passing, it failed Wednesday evening, 56 to 44 - the same as in July.

The second, by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., would have cut funding for most military operations in Iraq by June, except for counterterrorism, training Iraqi forces and protecting U.S. assets. But that was too far even for many Democrats, and it failed Thursday by a wide margin.

This morning, the Senate is scheduled to vote on an amendment by Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., that calls for troops to begin leaving soon and be mostly out by next year. It is not expected to get 60 votes, either.

"The majority of the House and a majority of the Senate want to change the direction of the war in Iraq," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said. "And the Senate Republicans, the vast majority of them, will not allow us to change direction."

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., a moderate who has voted with the Democrats on Iraq, said several colleagues who might have joined him dug in after the antiwar group MoveOn.org ran a newspaper ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq.

Petraeus' relatively upbeat report to the Congress last week also has helped keep Republicans together.

But for Democrats, the week has been far from a bust. If their first goal is getting out of Iraq, Senate Republicans offer an attractive secondary target.

As the Democrats see it, every Iraq vote is a chance to juxtapose the Republicans' position with the voters', members and analysts say.

While the Democrats must defend just a dozen Senate seats in the 2008 election, the Republicans must defend almost twice that many. Some Senate Democrats see that as reason enough to continue beating on Iraq.

"The debate has to happen so people understand why they need to change senators in New Hampshire, in Minnesota and other states ... like Colorado," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "If you just sat back and said nothing, people wouldn't know."

But as the Republicans have learned by pushing conservative social causes when they were in charge, it's possible to overreach. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute who analyzes opinion data, said about 30 percent of Americans want troops out now, and about 10 percent want to stay.

"Everyone else is somewhere in between, leaning toward withdrawal but still worried about losing, worried about al-Qaida, believing that Bush's goals (for stability in the Middle East) are appropriate," Bowman said.

"Certainly people think it was a mistake, but that doesn't mean they think we ought to leave tomorrow."

Many Republicans are counting on that and say they believe moderate and independent voters will punish the Democrats for yawing to the party's antiwar wing at the expense of prudence.

The White House sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates and senior military officials to Capitol Hill this week to buck up wavering moderates, while Republicans made Democratic attention to the antiwar base a key talking point.

That campaign won a boost Thursday when Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the top Democratic candidate for president, voted against a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for the ad bashing Petraeus as "Gen. Betray Us."

Her closest competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., didn't vote on it, even though he did vote on measures that came immediately before and after the resolution.

"They have to play to their radical left base," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said. "They want to make political points at the expense of progress. ... And that's why I think the Democrats are beating a dead horse with a straw."

Reid has left open the possibility that Democrats could offer a less stringent version of the Levin-Reed amendment next week, which might win more Republican support. But he also said his main job is to push Bush to reduce American exposure in Iraq, not to forge bipartisan partnerships.

Several more opportunities are coming up, including the 2008 defense spending bill and a bill to provide short-term funding for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I can always go home and tell them we're working on it," Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said. "Maybe we're not changing the course, but we're trying."

Wes Allison can be reached at allison@sptimes.com or (202) 463-0577.

[Last modified September 21, 2007, 00:12:55]