Many people have commented on the fundamental lack of seriousness with which some Democrats have approached the Iraq debate but few, if any, have done it as well as David Brooks does this morning in the New York Times:

The fact is there are two serious approaches to U.S. policy in Iraq, and the Democratic leaders, for purely political reasons, are caught in the middle, and even people like Carl Levin are beginning to sound silly.

One serious position is heard on the left: that there's nothing more we can effectively do in Iraq. We've spent four years there and have not been able to quell the violence. If the place is headed for civil war, there's nothing we can do to stop it, and we certainly don't want to get caught in the middle. The only reasonable option is to get out now before more Americans die.

The second serious option is heard on the right. We have to do everything we can to head off catastrophe, and it's too soon to give up hope. The surge is already producing some results. Bombing deaths are down by at least a third. Execution-style slayings have been cut in half. An oil agreement has been reached, tribes in Anbar Province are chasing Al Qaeda, cross-sectarian political blocs are emerging. We should perhaps build on the promise of the surge with regional diplomacy or a soft partition, but we certainly should not set timetables for withdrawal.

The Democratic leaders don't want to be for immediate withdrawal because it might alienate the centrists, and they don't want to see out the surge because that would alienate the base. What they want to do is be against Bush without accepting responsibility for any real policy, so they have concocted a vaporous policy of distant withdrawal that is divorced from realities on the ground.

Say what you will about President Bush, when he thinks a policy is right, like the surge, he supports it, even if it's going to be unpopular. The Democratic leaders, accustomed to the irresponsibility of opposition, show no such guts.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 03:21 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Watch Democratic House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey get exercised:

He later apologized in an interview with The Hill, saying:

"What so frustrated me about the encounter is that it became apparent that she had no idea that the bill she was being asked to tell me to vote against would set a deadline for our getting out of Iraq," he said. "So many of these liberal groups don't adequately inform their members. They don't have the full story about what we're trying to do and they wind up not being able to distinguish their friend from their enemy. These people won't take yes for an answer." [snip]

"I'm sorry that the frustration happened to erupt in that hall," he said. "I wish it hadn't. If these groups would inform people before they hit the Hill...we might have a better chance to have the votes to end this thing."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:41 PM | Email Author | Permalink

As a follow up to Blake's post, consider the following timing: Yesterday at around 3am, Eastern Standard Time, America's new top general in Iraq gave his first big press conference in Baghdad.

Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Rice's Senior Advisor on Iraq, Ambassador David Satterfield, held a press conference in Washington before departing last night for Baghdad to attend the "neighbors conference" that will take place in Iraq tomorrow -- an event intended not only for Iraq's new government to build support in the region but also to set the stage for ministerial level meetings in April.

Sandwiched in between these two events, yesterday morning the Speaker of the House held a press conference of her own to announce the Democrats' new plan for getting America out of Iraq. This plan demands that the President certify by July 1 that certain benchmarks in Iraq are being met. If he can't make such a certification, troop withdrawals would begin immediately and be completed by the end of this year. Curiously, the plan also demands troops begin leaving Iraq in March of 2008 and be fully out of Iraq by the end of August even if the President can certify progress is being made.

As I said last week, if Democrats have one vulnerability on Iraq, it's leaving the impression they want to see America fail. The timing of the Dems' announcement strikes me as getting somewhere in that vicinity, in so much they were willing to make, as Blake suggests, what amounts to a political bet predicated on the surge not succeeding right in the middle of news of America's top commanders and diplomats pushing forward and trying to build on some of the recent positive momentum there.

So why didn't the Dems announce their plan earlier in the week or postpone it until next week to avoid looking like they were intentionally stepping on Gen. Petraeus and preempting the diplomatic conference? Politics, of course. To maximize exposure and limit any response, it's probably not a coincidence the Dems waited to go before the cameras until the President was wheels up on Air Force One for a six day trip to Latin America.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 10:51 AM | Email Author | Permalink

It's come to this then: Democrats anted up yesterday and declared an end to U.S. participation in the Iraq war no later than September 2008. Republicans in turn vowed resistance and the President threatened veto. With the two sides forming ranks, the coming showdown in Congress over the next month should be quite an event, as the future of the Iraq war hangs in the balance.

Or not. For a good summary of what happened yesterday on Capitol Hill check out The Politico's John Bresnahan's posts on the Pelosi plan and the Reid plan.

But the fact of the matter is that the Democrats presented their withdrawal plans with the expectation that neither will ever reach enactment. Both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi appreciate better than anyone the insurmountable task facing them of getting either one of their plans through Congress and past a presidential veto. It won't happen.

The question arises then as to why the Democrats would willingly enter a political standoff that will ultimately end in the surge progressing. It has to do with positioning and perception: Pelosi presents a withdrawal plan that is predicated on certain conditions and goals going unmet by the Iraqi government. Reid, meanwhile, forgoes conditions, but sets a "target date" for withdrawal past the point where there could be any question that Congress had given the president's plan time to succeed. Come November 2008, the expectation is that the public will have a very clear idea of which party allowed the surge to continue and which tried to avoid catastrophe (without of course causing it).

Is this much of a gamble? From the Democrats' calculations, no. Were all things equal, and the chances of success in Iraq 50-50, the Democrats wouldn't be as aggressive in their opposition. But all things aren't equal and the Democrats are probably moving forward on the assumption that the chance of failure in Iraq is 70-30, if not 80-20, which are very good odds.

But military odds and political odds are not one and the same, the latter being dependent on an independent, highly unpredictable variable known as the American public. Should we lose in Iraq, the odds are Republicans will take the blame. Unless, of course, the public believes that Democratic actions helped lead to that defeat. Hence, Pelosi's and Reid's differing plans that place complete withdrawal well into 2008 - in other words, well past the time they think the public could blame them for encouraging defeat.

But if the surge should succeed, then Democrats have a problem. Success in Iraq switches the dynamics of the gamble from avoiding blame to getting credit. And although Democrats have probably gone out on the ledge as far as they think is wise, they are still out there and vulnerable if Iraq takes a turn for the better.

So the coming showdown the media will be trumpeting for the next few weeks won't be much more than a lot of fiery rhetoric from both sides. This is now a waiting game and it all depends on what happens in Iraq.

Posted by Blake Dvorak at 10:36 AM | Email Author | Permalink

In my column today on the administration's early efforts to secure Baghdad, I note some of the signs of progress that have emerged from Iraq in recently. Here are three more from today: 1) The Washington Post reports that Sunni tribesmen joined with Iraq security forces to defeat dozens of insurgents in Western Iraq, 2) the Associated Press reports a sharp drop in the body count in Baghdad, and 3) The Los Angeles Times says that Iraqis who fled amid the earlier violence in their country are beginning to return home.

Also of note, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has chosen Iraq war critic Eliot A. Cohen to replace Philip Zelikow as a counselor.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the Senate yesterday continued to struggle to find ways to rebuke the administration's policy in Iraq. Majority Leader Reid said that while Democrats weren't able to agree on a political tactic, there was unanimity among his caucus that the "war in Iraq is going wrong."

And Russ Feingold said this:

"It's still George Bush's war, but we run the risk of gaining some ownership of it if we don't make it absolutely clear that we are the party that wants to get out of there."

The public is clearly sour on the war, and will probably remain so. But that sourness stems from frustration over a lack of progress in Iraq, not necessarily a desire to declare the whole thing a failure and leave as quickly as possible. In fact, if the Bush administration had made all of the same moves and adjustments six months before the election instead of six months after, Republicans would have faired much better in the election and probably would have kept control of the Senate.

So there is some political risk to Democrats continuing to try and rebuke and/or undermine the administration's policy even as it's showing signs of progress, however small. It makes it seem like they want this last chance in Iraq to fail for political reasons. It seems to me far smarter to lay low and shift the focus to a different issue for a while. If the surge fails in six months, Democrats can stand up and say "we told you so." If it somehow succeeds, they won't look like they've been pining for America's failure.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:54 AM | Email Author | Permalink

As a follow up to the post below about the framing of news of the withdrawal of British soldiers from Iraq, here is the reaction from our coalition partners down under, led by Prime Minister John Howard:

"A reduction has been in the wind (a while), and the reason I understand Mr Blair will give is that conditions have stabilised in Basra.

"I don't think it follows from that that there should be a reduction in our 550. I mean you have got to maintain a critical mass and to do the job according to our defence advice, you need that."

Australia is, in fact, bolstering its contribution in Iraq, sending up to 70 more non-combat military trainers within coming months.

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says the British move is a sign of progress in southern Iraq.

"Under no circumstances should anybody interpret the British (decision) ... as any kind of cut and run," he said.

Dr Nelson denied that the British policy was at odds with America's plan to send an extra 21,500 troops to Iraq, mainly to Baghdad.

"People ought to remember that 60 per cent of the violence comes from Baghdad and al-Anbar province, where al-Qaeda is particularly active," he told ABC Radio.

"The rest of Iraq is quite different".

Meanwhile, thousands of miles away another John, this one a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts and erstwhile presidential candidate, responded to the news this way:

"America's leading ally in Iraq has decided that a timetable for the phased redeployment of troops is the only responsible policy to help force Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. After years of touting Prime Minister Blair's resolve, the Administration should now pay attention to his new policy. This announcement makes it all the more inexplicable that the President and leading Republicans actually want to send more American troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war."

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:40 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The tone of the Iraq war debate got more strident today with Democratic presidential candidates competing to be more anti-war than the next and Republicans delivering bi-partisan blasts.

While stumping for Democrats in California yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama reiterated his opposition to the war and gave a thinly-veiled rebuke to President Bush's calls to continue fighting with a new strategy. "There are no good options in Iraq at this point," Obama said. "There are only bad options or worse options. But the worst option is to continue to put our young men and women in the midst of what is essentially a sectarian civil war in which they cannot succeed."

Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Biden didn't just criticize the commander-in-chief strategies as ineffective, but said they are "emboldening the enemy." This came after Biden accused Bush himself of saying war critics embolden the enemy. (Taking the cake was Rep. Dennis Kucinich who claimed the U.S. is "on its way toward being a fascist kind of government.")

On the GOP side, Rep. Duncan Hunter characterized Congress' war debate as equivalent to pulling "the rug out from under the soldiers ... by condemning this mission," Hunter said. "I thought it was a disservice to our soldiers."

Sen. John McCain continued to campaign as a critical hawk by blasting Donald Rumsfeld's conduct of the war, claiming he predicted the bloodshed in Iraq and the need for more soldiers and a new strategy more than three years ago. McCain said, "We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement -- that's the kindest word I can give you -- of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war. ... I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." McCain's comments were met by applause.

The best of the rest of today's news can be found here.

Posted by Justin Miller at 08:39 AM | Email Author | Permalink

First Barack Obama didn't favor a timetable for withdrawal. Now he's sponsoring a bill to have all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton says she'll begin redeploying troops out of Iraq during the first 90 days of her presidency.

And not to be one-upped by Clinton, Bill Richardson now said yesterday that he'll get us out of Iraq on the "first day" of his presidency.

Who's next in the Dem bidding war to get us out of Iraq and how can they possibly top the last bid?

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:59 AM | Email Author | Permalink

In the New York Times today, Paul Krugman explains why it's so vitally important to the left - and to him - that Hillary say she was wrong about her vote on the Iraq war:

For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes.[snip]

The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those now-famous three words from Mr. Edwards -- "I was wrong" -- matter so much to the Democratic base.

The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn't sound like another George Bush. That is, they want someone who doesn't suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.

How much truth is there to Krugman's hunch? As it turns out, the latest FOX News poll contained two questions pertaining to Krugman's argument:

QUESTION: Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate who has changed his or her position on the war in Iraq?

QUESTION: In general, during a time of war, would you prefer a president who: 1) sticks to his convictions, 2) can be persuaded to change his mind and withdraw, 3) depends, 4) don't know.

The results from this poll, at least as it pertains to opinions about Iraq, look to be mixed (at best) for Krugman. Independents are the only group that would be more likely to vote for a candidate who has changed his or her mind on the war, while Republicans and Democrats would be less likely, the former much more strenuously than the latter. But the plurality among all groups, led by Democrats, say it's not a major factor.

Krugman is right about one thing: even with the somewhat loaded wording in the last question, a majority of Dems, by a margin of almost two to one, prefer a presidential candidate who could be persuaded to withdraw in the middle of a war rather than one who would stand by his convictions. Independents were split evenly on that question.

One more thing from Krugman's article. Near the end he argues that both McCain and Giuliani would have "infallibility complexes" similar to Bush and would be unable to admit mistakes. Specifically, Krugman writes about Giuliani:

And as for Rudy Giuliani, there are so many examples of his inability to accept criticism that it's hard to choose.

Here's an incident from 1997. When New York magazine placed ads on city buses declaring that the publication was "possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for," the then-mayor ordered the ads removed -- and when a judge ordered the ads placed back on, he appealed the decision all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

Now imagine how Mr. Giuliani would react on being told, say, that his choice to head Homeland Security is actually a crook. Oh, wait.

Krugman must have missed Giuliani's appearance on Larry King just a few days ago:

KING: A couple of other quick things. Your long relationship with Bernie Kerik, a potential campaign problem?

GIULIANI: It -- you mean the...

KING: The former police commissioner?

GIULIANI: ... his -- recommending him?

KING: His downfall, yes.

GIULIANI: Recommending him and that? It was a mistake. I made a mistake.

And before that King asked Giuliani if mistakes had been made in Iraq. Giuliani replied, "of course there were mistakes." King then asked whether Giuliani would have done a better job of communicating than the current administration, to which Giuliani responded:

GIULIANI: I don't know. I hope -- I hope I would. I mean, you know, I hope -- I hope that I would learn from the mistakes that were made in this situation.

KING: Such as?

GIULIANI: Just as the mistakes I made when I was mayor, I tried to learn from them. If I get to be president of the United States, I probably won't make the same mistakes, because I will have learned from them. I'll probably make different ones.

KING: Now how is...

GIULIANI: And then the next one will learn from the ones that I made. And I would say that about Bill Clinton or George Bush. This job is so difficult that you've got to have humility about it and you have to understand how to look at the past not in a way in which you cast blame, but you learn from it.

I doubt that sounds to most Americans like a man with an infallibility complex.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:44 AM | Email Author | Permalink

New Gallup poll taken Feb 9-11 with the following detail on Iraq:

Republicans get a 27% job approval rating on their handling of the Iraq issue. Dems are only slightly higher at 30% approval.

60% oppose Bush's plan to surge troops, but only a slim majority (51%) favor a non-binding resolution from Congress expressing its disapproval of the plan.

57% favor putting a cap on the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq (aka The Hillary Clinton option).

63% favor setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year (aka The Barack Obama option - more or less, since Obama would have troops out by March 2008).

40% favor (and 58% oppose) denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq (aka The Russ Feingold option).

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:56 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The Senate is debating the non-binding resolutions right now. Watch here. The Politico's John Bresnahan reports:

"As of yet, there is no deal," said McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart. "There will be a cloture vote at 5:30 [p.m.], and they are not even going to get 50 votes." If there are not 60 votes to invoke cloture, the Senate cannot begin the Iraq debate and must shift to other legislative business.

Posted by John McIntyre at 03:49 PM | Email Author | Permalink

President Bush is often derided by the left for taking a "predetermined" course of action but, honestly, has there ever been anything more predetermined in political history than Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, et al. jetting over to Iraq and returning to declare they were "pessmistic" (Skelton) and "not encouraged" by what they saw (Murtha). Was there even a remote chance they would have changed their position, regardless of what they might have seen or heard while in Iraq? Of course not.

Now watch the video below closely. It is "B-roll" from Nancy Pelosi's recent trip to Iraq. At the 1:15 mark is a fifteen second clip of Pelosi speaking to Major General Fil, the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division, whose primary responsibility is the security of Baghdad. The audio is terrible and the clip begins and ends abruptly, but here is a transcript of the exchange:

Pelosi: next three to six months...

Gen. Fil: I think we'll have real progress. I'm speaking as the Commander, now, of the Division. I can't speak for the Prime Minister or General Casey, but as the Division Commander here in Baghdad, um, I think we'll...

Now read the transcript of Speaker Pelosi characterized what she heard on her trip at a big press conference in Washington DC on Tuesday:

"The escalation instituted by the president has been tried before and failed. Although we heard varying judgments about prospects for success this time, everyone we spoke to agreed that this was the one last chance, and it might not work."

We don't know who else Pelosi might have spoken to while on her trip, but we do know at least one very knowledgeable, high ranking officer told her that he expects to see "real progress." Is it conceivable Major General Fil also conceded to Pelosi upon direction examination the possibility that the plan "might not work?" I suppose so. But even if he did, Pelosi's carefully worded remarks to the American public appear to put the most pessimistic, most defeatist spin possible on what she saw and heard in Iraq. Unfortunately, it seems for political reasons the Democrats aren't even willing to concede the possibility, no matter how slight or remote it might seem to them, that we might actually succeed in Iraq.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 12:04 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Here's video of Senator Barack Obama on the Senate floor yesterday introducing the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007" which proposes to begin a "redeployment" of American troops out of Iraq starting in May and finishing by March of next year:

Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is going even further, calling for a cut-off of funding for the war and a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in six months. Feingold said:

Congress has the power to stop a war if it wants... If Congress doesn't stop the war, it's not because it doesn't have the power. It's because it doesn't have the will.

At least one of these guys has read the Constitution. Remember the old saying, "no guts, no glory?" Obama wants the glory of opposing Iraq without having the guts. Congress's war-making powers are clear, as is the President's role as Commander in Chief. There is, as Feingold notes, only one way to legislate and end to the war. If Obama is seriously interested in getting America out of Iraq, as opposed to just posturing with blatantly unconstitutional pieces of legislation to score political points, he should drop his bill and sign on with Feingold.

UPDATE: Lynn Sweet notes the "evolution" of Obama's position on setting a specific timetable for withdrawal - excuse me, "phased redeployment" - from Iraq.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:25 AM | Email Author | Permalink

It's tragic yet humorous that President Bush is constantly accused of being out of touch with reality when Nancy Pelosi can get away with saying things like this: "I believe redeployment of our troops is a step toward stability in the region.''

If Pelosi thinks we're losing the war or that it's not worth the sacrifice, fine. Say it loud and proud. But at least be honest about the consequences of what that means and stop pretending that the region is somehow going to be safer or more stable without American troops.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 05:50 AM | Email Author | Permalink

From The Hill:

Congressional Progressive Caucus chairwomen Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Out of Iraq Caucus Chairwoman Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) will tout their legislation tomorrow calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq within six months.

The bill will also prohibit permanent military bases in Iraq. Fair enough. At least some Democrats have finally stepped up and officially proposed what the overwhelming majority of their caucus wants - even if the bill is little more than window dressing.

But Democrats still haven't honestly addressed the consequences of pulling U.S. troops out in six months. What will happen in Iraq, in the broader Middle East, and what impact, if any, will such a move have on U.S. credibility and our long-term security? These aren't insignificant questions, and the Democrats should be willing to address them instead of just holding symbolic votes intended to try and win political points with their base.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:40 AM | Email Author | Permalink

While "stay the course" was a message which, on balance, worked to the President's benefit during the 2004 campaign, that message turned decisively against the Republican party in 2006. And even though the President tried to move away from that language in the second half of last year, Democrats were very effective at pinning the President's policy as "stay the course" and theirs as "change." The public clearly wanted change and voted for such in November.

From a public relations standpoint if the President's new policy has any hope of generating increased support he has to convince the public that his new Iraq plan is indeed a change from what we have been doing the last 18 months. Last week on FOX News Sunday, the new Majority leader in the House, Rep. Steny Hoyer, made it clear that the Democrats were going to characterize the President plan as more of the same.

We don't see this as a new policy....if the administration's policy remains the same, then we're going to have the same-old-same-old.

Yesterday on Meet the Press National security Advisor Stephen Hadley made it clear the from the administration's standpoint the new plan is not a continuation of Stay the Course.

One of the things that's different, I think, from, from that time is that we do have this unity government. This unity government's been in, in office about seven months. They are getting enormous pressure from their people to get the violence down, and that means, really, sectarian violence centered in Baghdad. They're responding to that pressure. They've come forward with a plan. They have made clear that they're going to increase their forces. They're committed to success, but they need our help to succeed. And it's important we do that because the alternatives, really, are the continued--the existing strategy, the stay the course, which everybody agrees is not working--that's failure slow--or simply turning it over to the Iraqis now and withdrawing, redeploying, whatever you call it, and that simply is not going to work because everybody agrees the Iraqis are not up to it. This is the, the--a strategy that offers the prospect of success as an alternative to either failing slow or failing fast. And the Americans--one thing we know about the American people, they're unhappy with this war, they want a new direction--so does the president--but they want to succeed, they don't want to fail. (emphasis added)

The administration and President Bush would be wise to repeat this line over and over again. First, it helps earn back credibility with the public by acknowledging the truth that the President's approach in 2006 was failing. Second, the political reality is if the President's new plan is perceived as more of the same or a continuation of "stay the course" the American people are not going to support it. And more importantly Republicans in Congress will not support it over time. The administration needs to understand, that not only do they have to show demonstrable progress on the ground in Iraq, but they have to build and sustain support among the American people.

The best way the President can generate that support and convince the American people that this new policy in Iraq is indeed different, is to make sure that the difference going forward is going to be much more that just 20,000 more troops. That means a significant switch to offensive-minded rules of engagement and a willingessness to confront and "deal with" Sadr, Iran, Syria and anyone else who is deliberately undermining our objectives.

Despite the polls and the pronouncements of some among the beltway establishment, my sense is that the American people are still willing to get behind an effort to win in Iraq, but they need to see more dramatic action and get a gut feeling that this plan is really different - and they need to see this soon.

Posted by John McIntyre at 09:38 AM | Email Author | Permalink

That's the headline from a New York Daily News article by Richard Sisk that begins: "The U.S. is betting its last-ditch effort in Iraq on an Iraqi prime minister who thwarted the last two drives on Baghdad, dissed President Bush and blocked the rescue attempt of a kidnapped G.I."

Sisk also quotes Secretary of State Condi Rice addressing the issue of Maliki's trustworthiness before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday:

"I understand the skepticism that people have that they will follow through" on the commitment to team up with U.S. troops to go after the militias and death squads, Rice said.

"I think the fact that they didn't act properly in the past does not mean that they won't act properly in the future," she added.

But John Burns and Sabrina Tavernise of the New York Times conclude their dispatch from Baghdad with this:

A Shiite political leader who has worked closely with the Americans in the past said the Bush benchmarks appeared to have been drawn up in the expectation that Mr. Maliki would not meet them. "He cannot deliver the disarming of the militias," the politician said, asking that he not be named because he did not want to be seen as publicly criticizing the prime minister. "He cannot deliver a good program for the economy and reconstruction. He cannot deliver on services. This is a matter of fact. There is a common understanding on the American side and the Iraqi side."

Views such as these -- increasingly common among the political class in Baghdad -- are often accompanied by predictions that Mr. Maliki will be forced out as the crisis over the militias builds. The Shiite politician who described him as incapable of disarming militias suggested he might resign; others have pointed to an American effort in recent weeks to line up a "moderate front" of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish political leaders outside the government, and said that the front might be a vehicle for mounting a parliamentary coup against Mr. Maliki, with behind-the-scenes American support.

This is speculation, of course, though to the extent there is any truth to the claim it is deeply discomforting: we've drawn up plans knowing Maliki can't or won't meet his obligations, either to try and oust him from office or to set conditions for a withdrawal in a few months.

I hope that's not the case and that Maliki will indeed hold up his end of the bargain. Still, it demonstrates what a mess Iraq has become that our last ditch effort hinges almost completely on trusting this man.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:39 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Here are some excerpts from Bush's speech later tonight laying out a "new way forward" in Iraq:

On the new strategy:

Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

On the role of the Iraqis:

Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

On securing Baghdad:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work...and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

On what Iraq must do:

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

On the economic component:

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

On protecting the American people:

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time...In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region.

On what victory in Iraq will look like:

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security...The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will...Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship...A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

On bringing our troops home:

[To]step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government...Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 04:27 PM | Email Author | Permalink

This is it. Tonight President Bush will call for a surge of 20,000 troops to Iraq in a last-ditch effort to salvage some sort of victory there. It's fair to say tonight's speech will be one of the most important of his presidency, and as he goes before the nation to deliver such a momentous message he's never been more alone politically.

Democrats vow to oppose Bush's plan, though they're unable to muster the courage of their convictions to do the one thing within their Constitutional power that would effectively cripple or even prevent it:

Despite polls showing Americans overwhelmingly opposed to the war, despite the mounting American military casualties, and despite the obvious ineffectiveness of the entire enterprise until now to bring stability to Iraq, Democrats at the very heart of the party's anti-war wing still think the political costs would simply be too high.

Instead, Democrats plan to hold a series of hearings and cast "symbolic votes" against the proposal which, despite being politically pusillanimous, is the only way they can square their opposition to the war without suffering the consequences of voting to defund it.

On the other side, Republicans aren't exactly coming off as models of political courage either. In particular, outside of John McCain, there's been a conspicuous silence on the subject of a troop surge by those who aspire to be the next Commander in Chief, including Rudy Giuliani, whose entire candidacy rests on the mantle of leadership and the ability to make sound judgments in times of crisis.

To refuse to answer the question about surging troops in Iraq by saying "I'm just a Governor" as Mitt Romney did the other week, or by deflecting the question until after the President speaks as Giuliani's camp did yesterday is, quite frankly, pathetic.

If you believe that it's still imperative that we win in Iraq, as both Romney and Giuliani have said publicly for months, then there's absolutely no reason, other than an unwillingness to take political heat, for either to have remained silent on the matter for so long. We are not talking about "preempting" the President, or even undermining him if you happen to disagree with his decision, but rather weighing in on the most important question facing the country right now: what do we do about the situation in Iraq? Will more troops help? If not why? What other changes need to be made?

Say what you want about John McCain, but at least he had the fortitude to stand up and be counted and to say that the political consequences of his opinion "pale in comparison to what I think is most important to our nation's security." He may be wrong, but at least he's leading.

After all, as Tony Blankley writes today, "when we are talking about war and peace, about life and death of our young citizen warriors, we owe them (and ourselves) as much honest talk as we can muster." I would add that we owe them more than an honest debate, we owe the troops action that will give them the best possible chance of successfully completing their mission.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:21 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Steny Hoyer on FOX New Sunday speaking on President Bush's proposal to "surge" troops into Iraq:

HOYER: First of all, we see this simply as an escalation and not a change. Essentially, we've gone up and down on troop levels before. We did so just recently. And when we sent troops into Baghdad, we sort of had community-by-community success but a general escalation, both in violence, sectarian confrontation, and loss of life.

So we don't see this as a new policy, and I think it's going to be greeted with great skepticism.

HUME: You don't see it as a change, but, on the other hand, adding troops, changing -- the command is changing. Abizaid has moved out. Casey has moved out. General Petraeus, generally pretty highly regarded, will be the main man there. Vice Admiral Fallon will be the new CENTCOM commander. And yet you say no change here?

HOYER: Let me except (ph) the fact that these are all good people, but the fact that we have a new secretary of defense or the fact that we have a new CENTCOM commander or Petraeus on the ground in Iraq, if the administration's policy remains the same, then we're going to have the same-old-same-old.

Hoyer is correct that the "same-old-same-old" in Iraq led by new names and more troops isn't going to get the job done from either a military or a strategic standpoint. And from a political standpoint, a surge of troops without a significant change in tactics is simply a ratcheting up of a policy that is working strongly for Democrats.
The number of troops in Iraq is secondary as long as our military remains in a defensive posture. Given the current political environment and the evisceration of the Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party, the U.S. public does not have the tolerance or the patience for the continuation of a defensive military posture in Iraq.

If the President wants to regain the support of the American people for his policy in Iraq he has to let the U.S. military go on the offensive. And if regaining an offensive footing is impossible due to political correctness, a fear of the media, or simply the reality on the ground then the focus needs to turn to how we can best manage a tactical retreat in Iraq.

Of course this retreat won't bring an end to the war - a point that is lost on the anti-war left and the "Fortress America" right - as Iraq is simply one front in the larger war against Islamic Jihadism. But a well-managed retreat would be preferable to a continuation of the status-quo policy of the last 18 months, dressed up under new commanders and 20,000 more troops.

Given the multiplicity of factors and the looming 2008 election cycle, the best move President Bush may have is a surge of troops, a massive offensive, and a hand-off to the Iraqi government followed by an orderly but prompt withdrawal of most U.S. troops.

Posted by John McIntyre at 08:30 AM | Email Author | Permalink

New CBS News poll pegs Bush's approval at 30%. Iraq is the dominant issue:

45% of respondents say Iraq should be the top priority of the new Congress
35% say Democrats will try and decrease troops
Another 36% say Democrats will try and remove all troops
20% say Bush has a clear plan for Iraq
Only 8% say Democrats have a clear plan for Iraq
23% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq (approval by party: R 51, D 6, I 18)
72% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq

RELATED: More commentary on the CBS News poll via Buzztracker.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:04 AM | Email Author | Permalink