Small Glimmers of Hope

In the aftermath of the outrage of the Libby disgrace, there does appear to be a small turnaround in American Iraq policy being negotiated, and this time, it is the White House that is arguing from a position of weakness.

Gates made headlines during a trip to Hawaii a month ago when he called a decades-long U.S. troop presence in Iraq "a great idea." Now, reports the Wall Street Journal, Gates figures the path to Congressional assent for an enduring, South Korea-style stay in Iraq is to come up with near-term troop reductions. It's basically a trade-off: cut the surge short in order to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

In and of itself, this is a terrible idea. Our troops in Iraq permanently would have essentially no mission and would be exposed to a far more chaotic situation than South Korea ever was. Furthermore, the manpower strain on the Army is such that they can't keep up this surge anyway without a draft, and the troops will be drawn down by next spring all by themselves, so why would Congress give up something additional (permanent bases) for something due to happen by default?

But let's look at the big picture. Obviously, support for the war is really cratering on Capitol Hill, and at least the Secretary of Defense understands that. Richard Lugar's call for a drawdown, along similar lines as Gates actually, is a signal that Republicans who want there to be a party for them in this next generation are coalescing around a pullback of troops. And with Gates going hat in hand to Congress to argue for a permanent presence, he's clearly accepting the reality of what's happening in Iraq and trying to salvage something out of it. Whether he has backing in the White House is unclear. But this is a very high-level official in the White House admitting that the surge is essentially doomed. That's important.

Gates is also continuing to push to close Gitmo and change the entire system for trying detainees, before the judicial system, which has agreed to hear a challenge to the Military Commissions Act, changes it for them.

Essentially, the administration would propose legislation that would result in dividing the estimated 375 Guantánamo detainees into three legal categories. The one that would call for legislative action would include detainees like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 2001 attacks, and others whose trials would risk exposing intelligence operations. This group, estimated at two dozen to 50, would be placed indefinitely in military brigs on American soil.

A second group would also be moved to the United States, most likely to face trial in military courts, but perhaps with more legal guarantees than in the current military tribunal system.

The third, and largest, group would consist of detainees to be released to their home countries.

This would still be unacceptable to me, as there would still be an element of denying habeas corpus and indefinite detention without charges involved. It's still worth pursuing because Guantanamo's elimination would send a message of change to the world, and like in the Iraq negotiations, the White House is in the weak position, knowing that Gitmo must go and trying to figure out an acceptable alternative.

This all possibly runs into a brick wall once Fourthbranch gets his mitts on it, but Democrats who want to end our involvement in Iraq and restore Constitutional rights have an opportunity to drive the debate here if they want it.

UPDATE: Arlen Specter gives another line of attack.

Frustrated by the Bush administration’s continued use of presidential signing statements to challenge or ignore provisions of Congressionally approved legislation, Senate Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has reintroduced legislation to rein in President Bush’s ability to use the tactic.

Specter, who has long been a critic of Bush’s use of signing statements, quietly introduced his Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 on Friday.

“The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like,” Specter said in a floor statement.

If the Democrats in Congress can't stand up for their own lawmaking powers, they really should pack it up and go home.