Why Does Bush Hate The Troops?

Last year Jim Webb and others offered the dwell time amendment to the defense appropriations bill and the emergency supplemental, calling for the Defense Department to allow a soldier as much time at home as he has in the field. The Administration called it craven, Republicans termed it a "slow-bleed" strategy and everybody questioned everybody's patriotism.

Bush just agreed to it today.

President Bush plans to announce today that he will cut Army combat tours in Iraq from 15 months to 12 months, returning rotations to where they were before last year's troop buildup in an effort to alleviate the tremendous stress on the military, administration officials said.

The move is in response to intense pressure from service commanders who have expressed anxiety about the toll of long deployments on their soldiers and, more broadly, about the U.S. military's ability to confront unanticipated threats. Bush will announce the decision during a national speech, in which aides said he will also embrace Army Gen. David H. Petraeus's plan to indefinitely suspend a drawdown of forces.

They can suspend the drawdown, or pause, as per the current parlance, but without the 15-month tours they cannot draw back up if needed. And so the President is basically acknowledging the endgame in Iraq. And don't let him tell you that troop decisions will be made based on conditions on the ground. He just consigned the US to a smaller force in Iraq regardless of the conditions.

Now, John McCain's refusal to rule out pre-emptive war means that he would have to increase tours of duty back to 15 months and/or dramatically increase the size of the Army, and the only way to do that is through a draft. The logical outcome of McCain's foreign policy is the end of the all-volunteer Army. So, let the buyer beware.

With respect to Iraq, this really does spell the end and I think Bush must have been given the message that it's basically over. When you see someone like Kenneth Pollack basically admit that a responsible withdrawal is demanded, you know that there's actually this sea change that very few people are noticing out in the field. The frustration on the faces of Congressmembers during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings showed that they've basically had it. Every step forward is accompanied by two steps back, and in the process we are losing lives and diverting resources from the real national security challenges. You're going to see this manifest itself first in the pullback of money from the war. Here's some more of the Post article.

Democrats moved to press Bush on another front, linking the sagging U.S. economy to escalating war costs. On a day when oil hit $112 a barrel for the first time, lawmakers said that energy-rich Iraq should be footing more of its own bills. "We've put about $45 billion into Iraq's reconstruction . . . and they have not spent their own resources," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.). "They have got to have some skin in the game."

Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) met yesterday to craft a bipartisan bill to make Iraq take on a greater share of the financial burden. Under their plan, any future U.S. money for reconstruction would take the form of a loan to be repaid, and Baghdad would have to pay for fuel used by U.S. troops and for the training of its own security forces, and make payments to the predominantly Sunni fighters in the Awakening movement taking on al-Qaeda.

"It's time, in fact long past time, the Iraqis start bearing a larger portion of the costs for this war," Collins said. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) echoed the sentiment. "Doesn't it just make sense that record-high gas prices pay for the reconstruction of Iraq, rather than the American taxpayer?" he asked.

This issue is resonant and I think it will click with voters. So money will come out, the troops will remain for another year because nobody in the Congress has the balls to fully fund withdrawal and nothing else. However, dwell time will return to balance (albeit with a waiting period just long enough to keep up the pace of deployments until Bush leaves office), the money burden will shift more and more to the Iraqis, and there will absolutely be an accountability moment on the war in November, with responsible withdrawal on the table. And the people are on the side of getting out. If Republicans want to bet on the electorate's resolve to stay inside Iraq with no endgame strategy and no plan for even defining success, go ahead. We're see you at the Inaugural ball - before we go inside.

Will David Obey de-fund the war?

David Obey, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee and therefore arguably the most important figure in terms of supplemental funding, just held a very interesting press conference, in which the key quote was this:

“As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo."

The truth of this is a little more complicated. But the baseline of what Obey's saying is, at least for now, he won't let a blank check out of committee. If the White House will not submit any alternative, that's de-funding the war.

Let's look at the full context of Obey's remarks:

“I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President’s request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.

-- "Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009."

-- "Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments."

-- "Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region."

“But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.

"Establish as a goal" is pretty weak tea, as we all know. It's of a piece with the Abecrombie-Tanner amendment being debated today, which does nothing but ask for a report on withdrawal rather than its implementation. And the Webb Amendment, while vital, is more of a slow-bleed than anything that will lead to a rapid drawdown.

But here's the thing. The White House won't accept this, and they believe this is a fight they can win. Of course they do, they've won it in the past. They just won it in the Senate:

Thwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The vote was 92-3.

The Senate bill doesn't guarantee that the money be spent; only a separate appropriations bill will manage that. And so what we're looking at is an impasse in the House Appropriations Committee. Will Obey shut it down, or will he just roll over? Well, maybe he can be flooded with the results of that new poll showing that Americans want to see the funding cut.

Most Americans oppose fully funding President George W. Bush's $190 billion request to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while a majority supports expanding a children's health care program he has threatened to veto, a Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.

The poll published on Tuesday also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and with Congress, partly because of the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy, The Washington Post reported.

Only about 25 percent of Americans support the administration's $190 billion war funding request; 70 percent want the proposed allocation reduced, the Post said.

We aren't likely to see the allocation reduced, but surely the Democrats can manage to remove their heads from their posteriors enough to understand that the public wants bold action and doesn't mind a combative stance. Obey's statement is the first step toward that. If he's willing to use his power of the gavel to force actual policy changes, that's a real change.

There's also this bit of controversy:

“If the President really is concerned about stopping red ink, we are prepared to introduce legislation which will provide for a war surtax for that portion of military costs that are related to our military actions in Iraq.

“We are choosing not to offset costs associated with our efforts in Afghanistan, because we believe that those are legitimate, because our Afghanistan effort is aimed at eliminating the Taliban who gave shelter to al Qaeda, and that action will benefit future generations. But those future generations should not be saddled with paying for an ill advised war in Iraq that seems to be never ending.

“If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for.

“We know that this proposal is going to be controversial – I don’t expect to get the support of our leadership or the support of our caucus at this point – but by putting together this bill we hope people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the President’s bluff on fiscal responsibility.

I highlighted the part where Obey doesn't expect the support of the leadership on the war tax. The truth is that he doesn't need it. He holds the gavel on Appropriations, and nothing will pass without his say so.

I'm not convinced that Obey has the wherewithal to really cut the funding. But he's certainly moving in that direction.

Army Chief of Staff urges exact same policy as the Webb amendment

The biggest story of the story IMO happened in the House Armed Services Committee. While the Senate was off passing pipe dream partition plans that nobody in Iraq actually wants, and the rest of the House was passing two more months of a blank check for Iraq, Robert Gates asked for $190 billion more in spending for Iraq and Afghanistan. But Army Chief of Staff George Casey was there as well. And his plea sounded extremely familiar.

General George W Casey told the Congressional Armed Forces Committee that it was imperative soldiers had longer breaks from battlefield duty to reduce the psychological and physical toll on manpower and family life.

Has a ring to it, doesn't it? In fact, it's fleshed out by this Washington Post story that predictably landed on page A15 today.

Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey Jr., who is scheduled to testify today before the House Armed Services Committee, intends to move as quickly as possible to grant soldiers more relief from the war zone, having argued that the troop rotations of 15 months in combat and 12 months at home -- required by the buildup of U.S. forces in Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan -- are "not sustainable" for the Army [...]

"The Army . . . is trying very hard to reduce the amount of time deployed versus the dwell time back in the United States, trying to get to a 12-month deployment to a 12-month dwell time back at home station," said Maj. Gen. Richard Sherlock, director of operational planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon briefing yesterday.

Hmm... dwell time... one-to-one relationship of time deployed to time at home... I know I heard this somewhere, just give me a sec...



Right! So Jim Webb's amendment is the entire basis for the stated policy of the US Army, and the Chief of Staff testified in an open session that it was imperative that the Webb amendment be made permanent military policy.

Incidentally, this shows John Warner, who switched his vote on the Webb amendment because he was "told by the military" that it wasn't sustainable, to be completely full of shit.

Gen. Casey and Army Secretary Pete Geren, who is also scheduled to testify today, have spoken frequently with lawmakers in recent weeks to inform them about the strain on the Army and the need for continued funding to rebuild the main U.S. ground force after four years of warfare have depleted its manpower and equipment.

Casey and other members of the Joint Chiefs have made no secret of their concerns about the stress imposed by the troop buildup. "Now we're 15 out, 12 back. And that's not sustainable," Casey said at a forum earlier this month. "I do not want to go beyond 15 months on the ground for the soldiers, and I want to get to more than a year at home as rapidly as we can," he said. Asked whether he thought the troop increase was working, Casey, who until this spring served as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, replied: "It remains to be seen."

For some reason, the Democrats have taken no for an answer and moved on to other blank check funding and MoveOn condemnation (I'm told the Congress will shut down temporarily until MoveOn runs another ad, for fear that they'll end up with nothing to talk about). But this testimony made it very clear that the Webb amendment is the ONLY solution to an Army that is well past the breaking point.

"No one can disguise the fact that the Army's ability to project forces is nil. They are not ready for full spectrum combat and it's recognized now," said a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters.

This is not only because of manpower, but equipment. We give huge outlays to giant corporations for cost-plus, no-bid contracts, but what we haven't done is fund replacement parts and repairs for equipment that's been used non-stop for the last four-plus years, both from the military and the National Guard. The Army is actually toast, thanks to this disaster. And the ability to confront any potential crisis throughout the world doesn't exist.

Yet the Democrats have simply stopped trying to put something as sensible as readiness on the front burner, despite the ARMY BEGGING FOR IT.

Tell John Cornyn To Move On

Box Turtle John Cornyn is pushing a ridiculous Sense of the Senate resolution today (apparently all the Republicans in the Senate want to do in a time of looming recession, endless war and an expanding health care crisis is to give their SENSE) codemning the MoveOn "General Betray Us" ad. Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer gave the proper context to this today.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, I might ask the Senator from Texas, there was a group from Texas that attacked Senator John Kerry and said he was undeserving of the commendations and decorations he received for his courage in fighting in Vietnam and raised questions about others who served in the military who were part of his swift boat operation. One would have to say, by any stretch, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were attacking the honor and integrity of one of our colleagues who served with honor in the Vietnam war.

I would like to ask the Senator from Texas if he is prepared to remain consistent and if he is also prepared to amend his amendment to repudiate the activities, actions, and statements of the Texas-based Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization with their unwarranted attacks on our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, during the 2004 campaign.

It's selective, OK if you're a Republican punishment, although I'm uncomfortable with juxtaposing the Swift Boat Liars with an ad that truthfully called out a General's dishonest PR campaign. Military men are not gods, and if they enter the political arena to defend a war that's killing our sons and daughters they shouldn't expect fealty.

But clearly, just as it's no business of the Senate to go around condemning political ads attacking John Kerry, the same with the MoveOn ad. Simply put, get back to work. Which is the message of Rick Noriega, a Fighting Dem who's been very aggressive so far in his upcoming Senate campaign against Cornyn. From an email:

Today John Cornyn is introducing a Senate resolution to condemn a recent advertisement from MoveOn.org in the New York Times. While the Senate is debating important legislation focused on bringing a responsible end to the war in Iraq, this is what John Cornyn is focused on?

Yesterday, he voted against restoring the Constitution's basic right of habeas corpus. Yesterday, he voted against the Webb-Hagel amendment, legislation that would have provided a safety net for our troops, requiring that they spend as much time at home with their families as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. And today? He's wasting the Senate's and the people's time by introducing a resolution about MoveOn.org's ad!

Send an email right now to John Cornyn. Tell him to move on from MoveOn today!

This is to be expected of John Cornyn, a faithful practitioner of the politics of Karl Rove. Instead of public conversations about the large issues that are really important -- the war on terror, the future of Social Security, education and health care for working families -- we get distractions over non-issues and tirades over wedge issues to create divisions among people.

We should not be surprised that John Cornyn doesn't want to discuss his rubberstamping of this Administration's failed policies in Iraq. That he doesn't want to talk about his obstruction of comprehensive immigration reform. And that he doesn't want to talk about the fact he voted against CHIP, a program to ensure health insurance for millions of children across the country.

While Republicans make up things to sound like whiny-ass titty-babies about, challengers are simply going to address the public record. And voting against readiness, voting against SCHIP, and voting against habeas corpus is a hell of a record. And that's just this week. Good for Noriega, I'm liking this guy.

(Cornyn's crap resolution PASSED, by the way. Why did Reid allow a vote?)

Wake Me Up When September Ends

The Webb Amedment failed with 56 votes.

Last time around, in July, it got... 56 votes. This time Tim Johnson was back to vote yes, and John Warner turned his back on America and voted no.

So after all the calls, all the marches, all the pressure... nothing's changed.

Ever have one of those days?

A good majority leader would walk to the podium and say that the Republicans just squandered their best deal on Iraq. Now everything should be about hard deadlines for withdrawal. Make them BEG to have the Webb Amendment back. And make them round up their own 60 votes for a blank check.

Could You Possibly Hate America More?

To counter Jim Webb's dwell time amendment that gives the troops the rest and readiness they need to keep the military from becoming completely broken, Republicans are going to offer the legislative equivalent of a "Support The Troops" car magnet:

Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an ardent opponent of a pro-troop measure to relieve the stress on the overstretched armed forces, announced he will propose a toothless, watered-down substitute to the Webb amendment.

McCain said he and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) have teamed up to put together a “sense of the Senate” amendment to express “very clearly that we all want all our troops home and we understand the stress and strain that’s been inflicted on the men and women in the military and the guard and reserves.”

The White House put all kinds of pressure on Warner to support this toothless bill, literally the most nonbinding resolution I've ever seen, and despite the fact that he AND the Bush Administration will be retired come January 2009, he bought it. Disgraceful.

After the White House acceeded to Warner's paltry wishes and offered an early troop cut (which isn't even a troop cut, that MEU was coming home in November anyway), his knees went all to jelly and he put up this side-by-side amendment that will give the troops nothing so much as a Hallmark "we're thinkin' of ya!" greeting card. It should shock the conscience of every American, the extent to which the Republicans hate our military so much that they'd rather see it disintegrate than end their catastrophic war.

Pop Warner

I thought that when John Warner announced his retirement, the pressure would be off of him to satisfy his President and his party, and he would be better positioned to vote his conscience. It turns out that his conscience pales in comparison to flattery:

Just when it looked as if Senator Jim Webb's troop readiness bill might pick up enough GOP support to reach the magic number of 60 filibuster-proof votes, we're now getting word that Senator John Warner is reconsidering his backing for it and may vote against it.

So reports the Wall Street Journal in a subscription only article. In a bit of a cruel joke, here's the reason Warner is giving for not backing a measure that would give exhausted troops more rest:

...in an interview Tuesday, the senator said he is "reconsidering his position" in light of the administration's willingness to move closer to him on expediting some reduction in U.S. troop levels this year in Iraq. "It took a lot of convincing to make the first units come home before Christmas," Mr. Warner said. "There is a lot of importance in that."

They did the meaningless thing I asked for! They like me, they really like me! I can't cross 'em now!

Warner also voted against giving nearby Washington, DC a voting representative in Congress, the only Senator of a contiguous area to do so. I guess since those DC residents aren't as - ahem - patrician as he is, they ought not to count.

(The common refrain amongst Republicans on this is that you can't give DC the vote because the Constitution forbids it and it requires an amendment. Of course, if that ever came up for a vote they'd vote against that too. They hide behind this notion that DC must be free of partisanship and therefore can't have voting members. Right, because the working-class citizens of DC would simply be able to bribe their Congressperson... oh wait, that's what every lobbyist in the country does, poor black people don't have the money to raise such a voice. This is purely about race - they don't want to see two black DC Senators down the road, which is not even what this bill provides.)

John Warner truly is Lucy Van Pelt with the football. But we can still honor our soldiers and pass the Webb Amendment. Call your Senators today.

UPDATE: Why am I doubting the fact that "GOP moderates" (all 0 of them) are weighing loyalty to Bush versus political realities? If that were the case there would still be a Republican Congress.

The Inevitability of Blackwater

Yesterday Bob Gates tried to wiggle out of the reality that the Army is as broken as at any time in recent history. Every single combat-ready brigade is either in Iraq or Afghanistan, just coming back, or about to be deployed. And if limits are placed on extending deployments, like Jim Webb and Jack Murtha's bill recommends, then the Defense Department would have to go to the National Guard and Army reservesfor more bodies.

And what this facilitates is the allowance of hundreds of thousands of contractors and security personnel in the country. Anything the Army doesn't have to do themselves makes it easier for them to sustain themselves. And so you get these private companies like Blackwter deploying essentially mercenaries into the region. And then stuff like this happens.

The Iraqi government said Monday that it was revoking the license of an American security firm accused of involvement in the deaths of eight civilians in a firefight that followed a car bomb explosion near a State Department motorcade.

The Interior Ministry said it would prosecute any foreign contractors found to have used excessive force in the Sunday shooting. It was latest accusation against the U.S.-contracted firms that operate with little or no supervision and are widely disliked by Iraqis who resent their speeding motorcades and forceful behavior.

Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said eight civilians were killed and 13 were wounded when contractors believed to be working for Blackwater USA opened fire in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood of western Baghdad.

''We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities,'' Khalaf said.

It's unclear what power the Iraqi government has in this instance. Private security contractors exist in a legal black hole, not fully liable to Iraqi law or military law. In fact, the Coalition Provisional Authority codified the private contractor exemption into law when they were in power.

The embassy also refused to answer any questions on Blackwater's status or legal issues, saying it was seeking clarification on the issue as part of the investigation, which was being carried out by the State Department's diplomatic security service and law enforcement officials working with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki late Sunday condemned the shooting by a ''foreign security company'' and called it a ''crime.''

The decision to pull the license was likely to face a challenge, as it would be a major blow to a company that was at the forefront of one of the main turning points in the war.

This does have the ability to strengthen the credibility of the Iraqi government if they can actually eject Blackwater from the country, but I'm not certain they can be successful. Blackwater has a lot of power and pull within the US government.

''There have been so many innocent people they've killed over there, and they just keep doing it,'' said Katy Helvenston, the mother of late Blackwater contractor Steve Helvenston, who died in 2004 during the ambush in Fallujah. ''They have just a callous disregard for life.''

Helvenston is now part of a lawsuit that accuses Blackwater of cutting corners that ultimately led to the death of her son and three others.

If the Bush Administration doesn't do the right thing here, they will worsen the prospects of both the Iraqi government and their own troops. Already I imagine the Iraqi people have less problems with killing Americans in their country.

UPDATE: To circle back to the Webb Amendment, this ought to be the strategy.

The Democrats should offer the Webb Amendment when the Defense Appropriation comes up. If the Republicans want to filibuster, fine. Don't pull the amendment. Just let them keep filibustering. As long as the amendment is on the floor, there can be no vote on the bill itself. Keep calling cloture votes, one per day. After a few days, start asking how long the Republicans intend to withhold money to fund troops in the field in order to pursue their petty partisan agenda.

If the Republicans in the Senate hold firm, it's their stubbornness that's holding up the bill. If they fold, and the bill gets to the President's desk and he vetoes it, then pass the same damned bill again. And start asking how long the President intends to block funding for troops in the field in order to pursue his petty partisan agenda.

As of October 1, there's no money to fund the war. So the usual move is to pass a continuing resolution, which keeps the money flowing until the appropriation passes. Fine. Pass a continuing resolution with the Webb Amendment attached. If the CR runs into a filibuster or a veto, ask how long ...

There's this idea among Democratic leaders that you can't pass the same bill twice because Americans just won't accept it. In truth, it's only the Washington elites that won't accept it. The people want to end the war, and furthermore they want to support the troops with the rest and readiness they need. They're willing to hang in and force the President's hand. In fact it's the best thing the Democratic Party could possibly do.

Common Ground=Agreeing With Me

Oh my God.

Tim Russert just gave a report that shouldn't shock, but did. He met with the President today in advance of his speech tonight. He's going to push for a long-term strategic relationship with Iraq that would put us in the region permanently. He's likening it to the Korean War (what's the Demilitarized Zone, the whole country?). And then there's this.

The President kept talking about funding common ground with the Democrats. Russert asked the President what common ground means? The President answered, "accepting the Petraeus report."

And then Russert asked about Jim Webb's readiness bill, which would mandate keeping troops in a 1:1 ratio (12 months out, 12 months back) and ensuring that our troops are rested and properly trained. He answered that if that is done to tie his hands on troop numbers, he would CALL UP MORE RESERVES AND NATIONAL GUARD FORCES.

People should be in the streets tonight. This man is out of his mind.

Warner Watch

One thing I didn't notice before: John Warner voted for Sen. Webb's readiness bill. At one level, this may be just comity with a fellow Virginian's bill. But at another level, this could be a significant crack in the armor. If nothing major is done this time around, obviously these kinds of bills and ideas will be coming back around in September. Sen. Warner, who I always considered the key Senator in the GOP on these issues, has now stated his willingness to vote for - not just talk about - meaningful policy around Iraq. This certainly puts him in a better class than Sens. Lugar and Voinovich and Domenici, who are all talk. Or maybe they're waiting to vote for that supa-awsom "Pretend To Adopt The Pretend Hard Deadlines of the Iraq Study Group" bill and nothing else.

Warner was extremely quiet about this vote, so any Republican looking for political cover wouldn't have known that they could hide behind his vote. He just went out and did it. Didn't make a big speech or a conference call to reporters. Just voted to support the troops. Which is exactly what this quite narrow bill was. To hear it from Sen. Webb:

A clear majority of the Senate—56 Members – sent a strong message today in favor of ensuring responsible deployment cycles for our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I regret that we did not reach the 60-vote margin that would have allowed this amendment to prevail. It was offered in the spirit of bipartisanship. It was offered with the intention of protecting the well-being of our troops.

“A Republican filibuster kept this amendment from passing by an up-or-down vote. Americans are tired of this kind of posturing. The troops and their families don’t want to hear about political, procedural maneuvers. What they really care about are results. They are looking for concrete actions that will protect the well-being of our men and women in uniform.

“The question on this amendment is not whether you support this war or whether you do not. It is not whether you want to wait until July or September to see where one particular set of bench marks or summaries might be taking us. The question is this: more than four years into ground operations in Iraq, we owe stability, and a reasonable cycle of deployment, to the men and women who are carrying our nation’s burden. That is the question. And that was the purpose of this amendment.”

The admakers are going to have a field day damning those who voted against this (Sen. Cornyn, I'm looking at you). John Warner's up this cycle and he maybe doesn't want the popular Webb campaigning against him and maybe that's all this is about. But at some point, Warner will have to go public. He did so today, in a small way.

P.S. My prediction is still that this Pretend to Adopt the ISG Report amendment from Ken Salazar and Pete Domenici will end up passing, even though, if the President were to take the unusual step of actually listening to Congress and following through on the amendment's goals, would be the worst possible situation.

Many would like to reduce the U.S. commitment to something like half of today's troop presence there. But it is much harder to find a mission for the remaining 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers that makes any sense militarily....

The more we shift out of combat missions and into training, the harder we make the trainers' job and the more exposed they become. It is unrealistic to expect that we can pull back to some safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting -- this would be neither safe nor productive.

If the surge is unacceptable, the better option is to cut our losses and withdraw altogether. In fact, the substantive case for either extreme -- surge or outright withdrawal -- is stronger than for any policy between. The surge is a long-shot gamble. But middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange. Moderation and centrism are normally the right instincts in American politics, and many lawmakers in both parties desperately want to find a workable middle ground on Iraq. But while the politics are right, the military logic is not.

David Broder just threw up in his mouth.

Welcome Aboard, Olympia Snowe

She signed on to Reed-Levin, which would mandate a redeployment within 120 days. So that's one more than we got for essentially the same bill in May, and it puts a lot of pressure on fellow Maine Republican Susan Collins, who's up for election mext year, to do the same. Collins did vote with Snowe and 5 other wayward Republicans on Sen. Webb's readiness bill, which was unfortunately filibustered. But 56 votes is a lot, and suggests that momentum is moving in the right direction. I don't know how much longer Republicans can continue to be the President's body armor.

This bit at the end of the story is hilarious:

Bush said Tuesday he would veto any legislation setting a deadline on troop withdrawals. He also said he would not rethink his military strategy until at least September, when the top military commander delivers a progress report on the troop buildup.

"That's what the American people expect. They expect for military people to come back and tell us how the military operations are going," Bush said. "And that's the way I'm going to play it as commander in chief."

He means that's what he tells himself the American people expect. The American people ACTUALLY expect us to get the hell out of there, like, today. Bush just wants a parade where Iraqis wave purple fingers and American flags and erect a statue to him (isn't that what Saddam demanded?).

People ask what we're doing in Iraq. And you can answer in a hundred ways and in a thousand shades of literalism to metaphor. But at some level we're in Iraq because President Bush wanted a parade. It's not hard to imagine how he must have imagined it. A withdrawal of most American troops from a staunchly allied pro-American Iraq. Waving flags. Heartfelt thanks and vindication for the president who had the guts and character to see it through.

And that's why we stay. Because somehow if he just keeps at it someday he might get his parade. Or rather if he just keeps us there forever he doesn't have to really deal wtih what a disaster he's created and fundamentally what a failure he is.

The War At Home On Iraq Policy Begins

Today Democrats in the Senate got down to work, with the unassailable Jim Webb in the forefront:

“Now in the fifth year of ground operations in Iraq, this deck of cards has come crashing down, and it’s landing heavily on the backs of soldiers and Marines who have been deployed again and again while the rest of the country sits back and debates Iraq as an intellectual or emotional exercise,” Webb said. “We’ve reached the point where we can no longer allow the ever-changing nature of this Administration’s operational policies to drive the way our troops are being deployed. In fact, the reverse is true. The availability of our troops should be the main determinant of how ground operations should be conducted.”

This is a rerun of Jack Murtha's "readiness strategy," which would have worked if House Democrats were committed to it. And it's only one of a series of proposals which will be attached to the defense authorization bill. There will also be a return of the Feingold-Reid legislation to cut off funding after a date certain, Levin-Reed to set a withdrawal date, a de-authorization of the resolution for war submitted by Hillary Clinton, and the Salazar-Domenici "Let's pretend we're doing something" bill, which unsurprisingly has the greatest chance of full passage:

How It Would Work: Sens. Ken Salazar and Domenici put together a bill that would commit the Bush administration to implementing the recommendations of last year's bipartisan Iraq commission led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. Though the commission had over 70 points of advice, functionally, the strategy set by the commission looks somewhat similar to Levin-Reed. While it wouldn't call for a troop pullout after April 1, 2008, the commission did recommend that the U.S. end its combat mission by then, leaving U.S. troops to train Iraqi security forces, fight al-Qaeda and protect themselves.

Likelihood of Passage: If it gets into the bill, its chances look very good. The Salazar-Domenici plan is the only truly bipartisan potential amendment. It is the plan most likely to attract Republican votes, since it doesn't embrace withdrawal. And as Bush has pivoted lately to embracing the Iraq Study Group after initially scorning it, the White House will find Salazar-Domenici the most palatable measure on offer in the senate.

Political Purpose: An acrimony-free bipartisan abandonment of the war without an abandonment of the U.S. commitment to Iraq. Quite possibly the best option for the GOP to argue that it's winding down the war without repudiating it, because it would allow GOP senators to back away from combat operations in Iraq without committing themselves to withdrawal. While Democrats wouldn't get withdrawal from Salazar-Domenici, they would be able to claim that they successfully won over many Republicans -- perhaps leading to a bipartisan withdrawal bill during the next legislative fight.

I highly recommend Spencer Ackerman's rundown of the legislative options.

In addition, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq is moving swiftly to make this summer hell for wayward Republicans and to move the nation on a course to ending our involvement in this occupation. It's a coalition of some of the strongest organizations in the progressive movement. It's already impacting things in Kentucky.

The public is unwilling to let the Congress off the hook for this for much longer. Republicans clearly sense that the walls are caving in. The goals for anyone who wants to end the war is to get out the messaging on that sham Salazar bill. Because that'll be the safety valve where Republicans will flow. If that's not seen as good enough, the pressure can be racheted up (or maybe as a prelude for the next fight, although my sense is that nobody in the public wants a next fight).

Meanwhile, we have an embassy where people are getting sick from the formaldehyde smell that is a symtpom of the construction problems there. Just thought you'd like to know. Oh, and this guy warns of great chaos if we leave Iraq. Chaos like the stuff that happened this weekend, I guess:

Mr. Zebari was speaking after a violent weekend in which more than 220 people were killed in Iraq, including 150 by a truck bomb in one of the deadliest single attacks since the American invasion in March 2003 [...]

Mr. Zebari’s comments came after some Sunni and Shiite leaders called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves, amid frustration that Iraqi security forces had failed to halt the deadly suicide attacks.

Good thing it's not so CHAOTIC now.