Slippage On SOFA?

Spencer Ackerman notes that Nouri al-Maliki, not Barack Obama, brooched the subject of keeping American troops in Iraq beyond the end of 2011, as mandated by the status of forces agreement.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opened the door for the first time Thursday to the prospect of a U.S. military presence in Iraq after the December 2011 deadline for troop withdrawal set by last year’s bilateral accord — something President Obama appeared to rule out during a joint appearance on Tuesday.

Speaking to an audience at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, Maliki said the accord, known as the Status of Forces Agreement, would “end” the American military presence in his country in 2011, but “nevertheless, if Iraqi forces required further training and further support, we shall examine this at that time based on the needs of Iraq,” he said through translation in response to a question from The Washington Independent. “I am sure that the will, the prospects and the desire for such cooperation is found among both parties.” [...]

In a joint appearance with Maliki at the White House on Tuesday, President Obama gave no indication that he envisioned a place for U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011, instead pledging to “fulfill our commitment to remove all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.” Using language that signaled an end to the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, Obama said the departure of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities was an “unmistakable signal” that his administration will “keep our commitments with the sovereign Iraqi government.” There are currently about 130,000 U.S. troops in the country.

Senior administration officials have denied any intent to keep U.S. forces in Iraq past that period as well. “It would require a new agreement, a new negotiation — almost certainly an Iraqi initiative — to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in February after Obama announced a schedule for staggered U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in accordance with the Status of Forces Agreement. “So in the absence of that agreement, in the absence of any negotiation for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the SOFA that, to say definitively, that we will be out at the end of 2011.”

You can read the full remarks of Maliki and Obama here. If I had to guess, I'd say that Maliki wants the flexibility of a US presence in case he needs their help in stopping a potential civil war against the Kurds in the north. It's not about increasing security - the fact that 2 million Iraqi pilgrims safely visited the shrine of Khadimiyah mosque, with only Iraqi security forces on guard, speaks to that. Maliki has traditionally used the forces as a blunt instrument to jockey for more power. If American troops can help stop a civil war in the north, and keep that part of the country in the fold, it fits with Maliki's desires.

The President should resist this. There's nothing that he can get out of keeping residual forces in Iraq going into an election year. It will not make Iraqis safer, as they must reconcile amongst themselves regardless of a US presence.

...Juan Cole says this is not a story. Maliki was mainly talking about a handful of trainers.

More Revolt Of The Generals

The most significant part of President Obama's Iraq speech was that this was the first time, I guess, that he has specifically agreed to abide by the bilateral status of forces agreement.

But full withdrawal will follow within 18 months of the combat-brigades' departure. For the first time as president, Obama attempted to resolve ambiguities about a full withdrawal along the Dec. 2011 framework that the Iraqi government insisted upon in last year's Status of Forces Agreement, committing himself to its mechanisms. Some on the left have wondered warily why Obama hadn't made such a public commitment. Those worries will probably end with this line:

"Under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned."

As Chris Bowers notes, breaking this agreement would mean extending the occupation into 2012, in an election year, at which point the antiwar movement would have good reason to howl in protest. The Iraqis secured a hard withdrawal date, the timing of which compels the President to stick with it.

However, NBC's Jim Miklaszeswki reported before the Obama speech that the Pentagon would prefer to break this agreement and continue the occupation (h/t).

Miklaszeswki: Secretary Gates, as early as 18 months to 2 years ago, was saying "look, everyone understands that we're going to have to start withdrawing from Iraq." But at the same time, Gates adds this caveat that he believes significant numbers of troops will remain in Iraq for years to come.

And in fact military commanders, despite this Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government that all US forces would be out by the end of 2011, are already making plans for a significant number of American troops to remain in Iraq beyond that 2011 deadline, assuming that Status of Forces Agreement agreement would be renegotiated.

And one senior military commander told us that he expects large numbers of American troops to be in Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years, David.

Gregory: 15 to 20 years, I think that takes a moment to really sink in. With a mission that is primarily what over that kind of time horizon, Mik?

Miklaszeswki: Again it would evolve from a day-to-day combat mission, to more of an oversight mission. We mustn't forget the US is providing nearly 100% of all combat air support over Iraq, and the Iraqi military is not going to be ready to assume that mission within the next 18 months to 2 years, it's going to be impossible.

And there are some discussions, I know Richard Engel mentioned the area of Kirkuk up in the north recently, there are some discussions among Iraqis and I know some military commanders to establish what could end up as a permanent air base, US air base, in Kirkuk.

The military commanders already mau-mau'ed their way into a three-month extension of the withdrawal of combat troops. Adding 15-20 years of troop deployments to Iraq would mean that babies born during the war would be spending tours of duty there. If they continue in violation of the bilateral agreement, they will be nothing but targets.

It seems to me that the commanders pushing this may not have much of a problem with the President taking political heat in 2012 for the decision. The officer class doesn't cotton to taking orders from Democrats, anyway. Watch for this move to undermine him over the next couple years.

Out Of Iraq! In 19-34 Months

The background here is that, per Gareth Porter, Petraeus and the commanders didn't want any withdrawal, but Obama insisted they draw up plans. So they rsignedly offered a menu of a 16-month, 19-month, and 23-month withdrawal. Obama predictably chose the one in the middle.

The United States will withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by August 2010, 19 months after President Barack Obama's inauguration day, according to administration officials who expect Obama to make the announcement this week.

The withdrawal plan would fulfill one of Obama's central campaign pledges, albeit a little more slowly than he promised. He said he would withdraw troops within 16 months, roughly one brigade a month from the time of his inauguration.

The U.S. military would leave behind a residual force, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to continue advising and training Iraqi security forces. Also staying beyond the 19 months would be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

A further withdrawal would take place before December 2011, when the U.S. has already agreed with Iraq that it would remove all American troops.

So, just residual forces by August 2010 when the combat withdrawals are done, and a full withdrawal of all forces by December 2011 as per the status of forces agreement.

It's a slightly lengthier stay, but we are on the path of leaving Iraq and that misbegotten war. And also, Obama is both asserting control over generals that wanted to continue the war while agreeing to a 3-month delay in pulling out. I'll accept it, because it moves us to a better path, for the security and safety of our troops (who would be giant targets if we didn't agree to the SOFA and leave), the ability to work with our allies, and our domestic fiscal situation. This is change.

Barack On Iraq

I caught a good bit of Sen. Obama's Iraq speech today, and it was not calibrated to curry favor with bipartisan elites. In fact, the very serious Michael O'Hanlon is livid.

Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.

"To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity," said O'Hanlon, who described himself as "livid." "I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else."

Actually, O'Hanlon is the living embodiment of absurdity, having called for just such a withdrawal in 2004. Furthermore I'm pretty sure he doesn't live in Iraq or speak Arabic, and he's been wrong pretty much all the time with respect to Iraq, and yet he manages to put his thoughts into print every day. One would think he'd be embarrassed.

Here's a link to the speech. As Greg Sargent says, Obama has taken his Iraq policy to a higher level, placing it in a strategic context and rejecting the typical back and forth of the tactical debate. Good for him. I think what people innately understand is that trying to spend unlimited dollars reaching something that can pass for stability in Iraq has distracted us, devalued us, and threatened our national security. Obama talks about the missed opportunity in the days following September 11, something else that Americans innately feel. This is one of the strongest moments of the speech.

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.

We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.

We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.

We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.

We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.

We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.

We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.

We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Obama's plan looks at the big picture and identifies five steps to guide his foreign policy: "ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century." On the war, I wish he would remove all residual forces, and he should be demanded to do so once in office instead of perpetuating the occupation. But he does understand that foreign policy does not begin and end in Baghdad. And he understands the economic and diplomatic incentives that we can undertake to strengthen our national security while lifting up nations of the world from poverty. His discussion with Fareed Zakaria has been instructive:

ZAKARIA: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia ... the largest Muslim country in the world?

OBAMA: Well, it was interesting. When I lived in Indonesia -- this would be '67, '68, late '60s, early '70s -- Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.

But around the world, there was no -- there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law.

And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. And what's interesting is, you can see some correlation between the economic crash during the Asian financial crisis, where about a third of Indonesia's GDP was wiped out, and the acceleration of these Islamic extremist forces.

It isn't to say that there is a direct correlation, but what is absolutely true is that there has been a shift in Islam that I believe is connected to the failures of governments and the failures of the West to work with many of these countries, in order to make sure that opportunities are there, that there's bottom-up economic growth.

By rejecting the narrowness of the debate from McCain (who was sputtering the same empty, petty phrases like "the surge is working" and "no surrender" and "conditions on the ground" today - tell it to the 35 dead Iraqi recruits at the hands of a suicide bomb today), Obama elevates the need to look at national security in a global context, and to use all the tools at America's disposal to benefit the globe rather than pounding it into submission. He's forcing that a different judgment be made on the war, one that respects Iraqi sovereignty while acknowledging that we can't waste unlimited resources propping up their government. It's a very good re-framing of the debate.

I've already remarked upon his plans for Afghanistan. But I do want to talk about his emphasis on nuclear nonproliferation, which extends not only to removing loose nukes but also eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons from the world generally. This is a big idea and one I hope he'll keep hammering. In fact, there's a companion TV ad that makes this point as well.

BO at town hall: We are a beacon of light around the world. At least that's what we can be again. That's what we should be again.

BO in interview: The single most important national security threat that we face...

BO VO:...is nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

BO VO: What I did was reach out to Senator Dick Lugar, a Republican, to help lock down loose nuclear weapons.

BO in interview: We have to lead the entire world to reduce that threat.

BO at town hall: We can restore America's leadership in the world.

BO VO: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

Instead of expelling Russia from the G8, Obama would reach out to them on this issue to gather loose nukes. This is generally agreed as one of the world's greatest threats, and yet the current Administration has really done a terrible job at securing radioactive materials in this country and abroad. I know that I've been wondering, particularly in the wake of Ryan Lizza's New Yorker article, what Obama is holding this political capital for, and where he plans to spend it. He's been running a different campaign every four years or so for over a decade, what will he spend his time on when there's no office left to conquer? I think nonproliferation will be a key component, as will building coalitions out of mutual self-interest to confront humanitarian crises or strengthen national security. A President with a vision of a non-nuclear world is a very new conception. That alone has the power for massive change, and will make us all safer. And this isn't some DFH on the side of the road with a "no nukes" sign, but the man in charge of all levers of statecraft.

It's a good speech, I encourage you to read it and think about it.

UPDATE: I forgot to flag this part:

George Bush and John McCain don't have a strategy for success in Iraq—they have a strategy for staying in Iraq. They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down. They refuse to press the Iraqis to make tough choices, and they label any timetable to redeploy our troops "surrender," even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government—not to a terrorist enemy. Theirs is an endless focus on tactics inside Iraq, with no consideration of our strategy to face threats beyond Iraq's borders.

Crucial point. When the choice is "surrender" vs. "conditions," there's one answer. When the choice is "responsible plan" vs. "stay in Iraq forever," it's quite a different picture.

What Do We Want? An End To The War! When Do We Want It? At Some Unfixed Time In The Future!

You've gotta be kidding me.

A small group of Republicans facing election fights next year have rallied around war legislation they think could unite the GOP: call for an end to U.S. combat in Iraq, but wait until President Bush is out of office.

The legislation was deemed essentially a nonstarter by Democrats Friday and underscored the difficulty Congress has in striking a bipartisan compromise on the war. What attracts Democrats has repelled Republicans and vice versa, making it impossible so far to find a middle ground [...]

The proposal, by Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, would require that Bush change the mission of U.S. troops from combat to primarily support roles, such as training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. infrastructure in Iraq. His legislation would set a goal of completing such a mission transition within 15 months.

If enacted immediately, that timeline would not kick in until Bush's last couple weeks in office.

Co-sponsors of the bill include Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Of the sponsors, only Voinovich is not up for re-election in 2008.

Awfully convenient.

Can anyone now not say that the Republicans are primarily concerned with getting Bush off the hook and blaming the failure in Iraq on Democrats? And also, this is classic Overton Window stuff. You have the President running around giving back-channel advice to the Democratic candidates, advising them to stay in Iraq. That's completely absurd, so as a compromise, the "sensible centrist" Republicans who are concerned with keeping their jobs go "OK, we can leave after Bush is done." This completely unreasonable suggestion seems reasonable, compared to Bush (and compared to Democratic front-runners).

UPDATE: By the way, Congress passed a two-month blank check for the occupation with almost no fanfare. Only Russ Feingold dissented in the Senate. Therefore you must conclude that he's the only one in the Senate who actually wants to end the war.

Pushing the Iraq Debate Left

I didn't see the Presidential debate last night, but apparently the residual forces issue took center stage, with Richardson and Dodd committed to ending the war by taking all troops out, and Clinton and Obama and Biden opposed. John Edwards, who was unfairly lumped in with the status quo, residual force crowd despite being fairly clear on this for some time, gave specifics:

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I'm sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.

I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

Chris Bowers considers this a step forward, but it's pretty much what Edwards has been saying for quite a while now. I will say that Bowers' insistence on this issue, along with the recent Bill Richardson ad featuring bloggers, has done what it set out to do - bring the debate on residual forces out into the open. It's pushed Dodd fully into the no residual forces camp, and allowed Edwards to honestly put a number on what we will see in Iraq during his first term. Better to have this debate out in the open so the American people know what they're getting with a Democratic President. And I think this helps Edwards a lot (he apparently had a very good showing last night).

Residuals

Chris Bowers has done an excellent job compiling the Presidentials' plans for Iraq, most of which include residual forces of fairly large numbers. While everybody's making noise about no funding without a timeline (good for Edwards and Dodd), boldly and correctly resisting the calls of wavering Democrats who want to drop the withdrawal timeline, the actual question of what will remain AFTER the withdrawal is being elided. Bowers found what amounts to Clinton's post-withdrawal plan, from a think tank closely allied with her, which calls for 60,000 troops remaining in Iraq for three or four years, followed by a year's worth of withdrawal. And the other Democrats in the field have pretty similar plans:

The tasks that Obama lists for American troops to conduct in Iraq are virtually identical to those listed in the Clinton legislation for redeployment, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and those proposed by the Center for a New American Security. It appears that both Clinton and Obama would keep 40,000 troops in Iraq for a while if they become President, plus between 6,000 and 20,000 advisors and an always unspecified numbers of private contractors. I actually feel very confident in these numbers at this point, given how they have repeatedly appeared in several sources.

Dodd's plan is also virtually identical to the one proposed by Obama and Clinton... Conditionally, Biden supports exactly the same plan, although he estimates 20,000 to 60,000, rather than 40,000 to 60,000... Edwards goes further than Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama, citing the protection of American personnel and the American embassy as the only task he would have American troops conduct in Iraq under his presidency... Of course, Bill Richardson goes even further, citing only the protection embassy green zone as a task for American troops to continue to perform in Iraq. Kucinich appears to have a similar plan.

So, here is the quick breakdown for what the Democratic candidates would have American troops do in Iraq if they become President, and how many troops it would require to perform those missions:

No residual forces outside of embassy protection: Richardson, Kucinich. This would require 5,000 to 10,000 troops, though possibly less, depending on the size of the embassy each would decide to maintain in Iraq.

Residual forces for embassy and personnel protection: Edwards. This would require between 5,000 and 10,000 troops for the embassy, and probably a similar number outside of the embassy. So, 10,000 to 20,000 seems likely.

Residual forces for counter-terrorism, Iraqi troop training, personnel protection and embassy protection: Clinton, Dodd and Obama, plus Biden conditionally. This will require roughly 40,000 troops, plus the number of advisors for the Iraqi military, plus an indeterminate amount of mercenaries private contractors. The Biden plan might require as few as 20,000, depending on the circumstances.

The part that makes you sick about all of this is how it's hidden from public view. It took Bowers a while to dig all this up. If you poll people on what they think the leading candidates would do in Iraq, they think all Democrats would do exactly the same thing: "Start withdrawing troops within the next three months, with all troops out within nine months from now." This is completely untrue in the case of Clinton and Obama, and kinda/sorta untrue in the case of Edwards, though he's closer to that goal. It's the great unmentionable of this campaign. Only Bill Richardson has tried to stake out some ground on this.

The top Democratic candidates are hiding the truth. They want to use the slogan of "end the war" to get votes, but they actually aren't all that interested in ending the war. Or rather, from their perspective, they want to end it "responsibly," which is code for prolonging it several years into the future at which point the same thing happens that would occur if we got out tomorrow.

The lack of voter education on presidential candidate plans for Iraq is both breathtaking and frightening. Unless something changes in the next few months, voters will be in for a rude awakening when they find out that virtually every candidate for President with a real chance of becoming the nominee of either major party, save possibly Edwards and definitely save Richardson, are way more hawkish on Iraq than they are believed to be. Democratic voters might be in for a particularly rude awakening in the general election, or at least some point in 2009, when they find out the candidate they nominated is actually in favor of keeping a substantial number of troops in Iraq.

If Democratic voters become aware of candidate plans for Iraq, and still end up nominating someone who favors a substantial residual force to train Iraqi security and conduct counter-terrorism, I can live with that, even if I will work against it. However, if Democrats end up nominating a candidate who supports a substantial residual forces plan while thinking that candidate will actually withdraw virtually all troops in a short period of time, then basically our party will have been hoodwinked in a manner not unlike the way the war was first sold to the American public back in 2002 and 2003. While that will be incredibly depressing and infuriating, it also won’t be that much of a huge surprise. After all, most of the Democratic foreign policy elite behind the substantial residual forces plan actually helped sell the Iraq war before it began. The obfuscation used to continue American military involvement in Iraq never ceases, and it seems the players involved never change.

This is the essential problem. The Democratic foreign policy bench is woefully thin and incredibly corrupted by warhawks who are part of the problem. I have been giving Obama a second look because of his relationship with Samantha Power, who represents fresh foreign policy thinking. But on Iraq, there's no daylight between Obama and Clinton. Only Edwards has staked out somewhat new territory here, and yet who actually knows that?

I'm Confused

I know, this time more than normal.

So John Edwards is taking out an ad calling for no Congressional funding without a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Yet he has not committed to a total withdrawal with no residual forces. How would his plan then "end the war"?

Man, it's a shame that Richardson is such a terrible candidate, because he's the only one willing to stake out that position of no residual forces. I don't think he knows what it means (he didn't even know what the supplemental appropriation on Iraq was), but his handlers at least understand the power of calling for a real end to the war instead of this mish-mosh. How can Edwards credibly call for an "end to the war" without an actual end to the war?

70,000

I'm not sure how different it is to offer a troop withdrawal without a timeline, as Jack Murtha did today, as opposed to one with one for Republicans; in their minds surrender is surrender (even when it's not). But one thing he said made me wince:

While he opposes leaving any U.S. troops behind, Murtha said he'll bring an amendment to the House floor next week that requires the White House to start redeployment within 60 days of enactment, without setting a deadline for completion.

"I'm hearing signals. They (Republicans) are trying to work out a deal where we leave 70,000 troops over there ... That's the White House telling them to do that, I'm convinced," he told reporters.

"I'm hoping there will be an agreement between Democrats and Republicans and the Senate and the House and the White House and I think you'll see that happen. I think you'll see that happen by September, October," he said.

I believe that this is starting to be the Washington consensus, to pull back troops (which they have to do, the rotation schedule demands it) while leaving a smaller force in place. What nobody seems to ever explain is, just what can 70,000 soldiers do that 160,000 are unable to do? How would you have these 70,000 go about their business? Do you want them to go out on smaller patrols? Try to control a civil war with less forces?

There's actually nothing that 70,000 nen can do to secure Iraq, they'd just be a sacrifice to the egos of those who don't what to admit failure. We can't unshit the bed, and the impact of 70,000 foreigners with a continued American presence is not only insufficient, but far worse than the impact of leaving the country and taking the American face completely off this thing. A residual force is maybe the worst possible solution. But it's a compromise, which is why it's seen as the wise and sensible thing to do by the David Broders of the world.

Domenici Off The Reservation

I think what we're going to see is some resolution in the Senate pass to adopt all the Iraq Study Group recommendations (Democrats should swiftly couple it with their already-passed bill to adopt the 9-11 Commission recommendations). That'll be as far as Republicans go in breaking with the President. Still, that's a somewhat significant shift, and Pete Domenici kicked the ball down that road today:

In a speech earlier today in Albuquerque, Domenici announced his support for legislation currently championed by Senators Ken Salazar (D-CO) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) to make the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into the official U.S. policy — in other words, Domenici now supports a gradual pulldown of the American presence in Iraq, and a renewed effort at reaching out to other regional players in the Middle East like Iran and Syria.

"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward," Domenici said. "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

The bill calls for redeploying a large portion of American forces out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, except for those numbers deemed necessary for protecting U.S. infrastructure, training Iraq forces, and conducting special operations. So while a significant number of Americans would no doubt remain, they would not be charged with everyday constabulary duties and other aspects of nation-building.

We don't need a residual force in Iraq, and I don't know how the "special operations" would be any different than what most combat forces are doing right now (certainly the Bush Administration will justify things that way if pressed). This remains significant, because the way Congress ends a war is by chipping away bit by bit. This would stop the surge, no strings attached, instead of Robert Gates' crazy "surge-for-permanent-bases" deal. It would put the majority opinion of the legislative branch on the side of drawing down involvement in the Middle East instead of moving on to the next war like Joe "Iran has declared war on us" Lieberman. A smart Democratic majority would pounce on this and keep pushing, with more and more votes designed to weaken Republican support which is already buckling at the knees. Domenici is up for re-election in 2008, and so obviously him and other Republicans can be reversed, if not in a meaningful way then by degrees. They have to keep the pressure on.

UPDATE: That said, I do agree that Domenici's statement means nothing unless he's prepared to do something about it; that is, put his vote where his mouth is. Dick Lugar kind of failed that test. At least Domenici is signing on to a specific bill.

UPDATE II: Great statement by Harry Reid, essentially telling Domenici and others that talk is cheap and they'll have to back up their words:

"Senator Domenici is correct to assess that the Administration's war strategy is misguided. But we will not see a much-needed change of course in Iraq until Republicans like Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich are willing to stand up to President Bush and his stubborn clinging to a failed policy – and more importantly, back up their words with action. Beginning with the Defense Authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way too so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve.