Some hours ago I planned the post I was going to write today on the big news you weren’t hearing much about: the bipartisan legislation introduced yesterday to trigger a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Now it looks like that post may have been overtaken by events. I’ll just give a few quick links since I suspect my colleague Bill Roggio will soon provide additional information, but in just the last 24 hours we learned that the Shias and Sunnis both seem to want us out of Iraq (according to the leader of the Sadrist bloc, anyway), and that Congressional Republicans are telling the president that he has lost credibility and there are only a few months left to make lasting progress. These are noteworthy events. But the latter, at least, likely will have little effect on the situation on the ground. It was being whispered some months ago that the White House recognized that by the end of this year, troops would have to be coming home from Iraq. Further, General Petraeus had said that it was reasonable to begin to assess the effectiveness of ‘the surge’ by the fall. It was never likely–given domestic political pressure–that Republicans or Democrats would wait any longer than that. The eagerness of some Republicans to be seen expressing frustration sends a message to the Iraqi government–perhaps an unhelpful one–but it changes little here. Secretly unhappy Republicans who were committed to waiting until the fall to pass judgment are now publicly unhappy Republicans who are waiting until fall to pass judgment. So on to legislative matters. The House continues to claim a stranglehold on pointless theater. Knowing full well that their funding bill is DOA, House leaders continue to press for it. That move has political consequences, as the anti-war left is already drawing up enemies lists–comprised mostly of the conservative Dem freshmen who brought the party its first majority in 12 years. A lot of these members have already taken tough votes that will be used against them in their campaigns next year; now some of them seem to be making enemies on the left. So much for gratitude. Yet if the House bill is merely a distraction, what will the actual funding vehicle be? There’s a decent chance it will be some version of the Snowe-Bayh compromise introduced yesterday. Senator Snowe spoke about it yesterday on PBS:
This plan will be politically attractive. Its sponsors will argue: * It’s bipartisan; * it fully funds the troops; * it provides for a clear-headed review of progress after the ‘surge’ has had a few months to work; * it incorporates some of the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations; * it does not force a withdrawal; and * it provides a carrot-and-stick approach to achieving benchmarks. If Senator Reid is not so giddy with the news of the day that he decides to press for a faster bugout, he may try to unify his caucus behind this approach. With the support of some moderate Senate Republicans, it could get 55 votes–or more, if supporters can build a ‘head of steam’ behind it. Given the discontent we have seen among House Republicans, wouldn’t some be eager to back legislation like that described above? It’s good that the president weighed in this morning to state his support for benchmarks. The White House will have to fully engage in this debate to ensure that senators don’t get too far ahead and agree to legislation that the president feels is too prescriptive. They could wind up with legislation that’s tough to veto.
