I f President Bush were a quarterback, you could say, with his latest troop buildup in Iraq, that he?s freezing the linebackers.
As every football fan knows, the expression refers to a fake hand-off to a runner plowing into the line that obliges the linebackers to stay in place rather than falling back to defend against a pass.
In this case, the linebackers are the opposing congressional Democrats. They may want to start withdrawing troops, but they can?t press for that step until the new force buildup has a chance to show whether it can tamp down the violence in Baghdad.
After blocking debate in the Senate on a nonbinding resolution against Bush?s troop “surge,” or “escalation” as the Democrats prefer, the Republicans have gone on the offensive with a charge of inconsistency against the resolution?s proponents.
Just after the Senate has confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as the new U.S. commander in Iraq by a 84-0 vote, they pointout, Democratic war critics (and some Republicans) want to vote against giving him the 21,500 additional forces he says he needs as part of his own counterinsurgency strategy.
What the Republicans call a glaring inconsistency is certain to be aired this week in the House, where another nonbinding resolution against the buildup will offered starting Tuesday. Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in the forefront of liberal Democrats determined to bring an end to the war with a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, she has agreed to debate on the resolution, called toothless by such liberals and Bush supporters on the war as well.
The Democratic majority in the House is being asked to back the nonbinding resolution, which will also express strong support for the troops in the field, as only a first step toward more aggressive efforts later to terminate the American presence in Iraq.
But the continuing daily reports of the death toll on U.S. soldiers and Marines in the complex mix of civil war and sectarian violence are likely to heighten the demand of the war critics to move beyond that first step.
Even as the White House pleads for time to allow Petraeus and the infusion of troops to pull Bush?s chestnuts from the fire of his botched operation in Iraq, the president is suffering some remarkable breaches of discipline in his own ranks, both civilian and military.
In the Senate?s confirmation of Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the departed commander in Iraq, as the new Army chief of staff, 10 Republicans were among the 14 members voting against it. Sen. John McCain, a 2008 presidential contender, was particularly emphatic in arguing that Casey?s leadership in a flawed mission did not warrant promotion.
It took a Democrat, Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, to mount a defense of Casey, saying civilian leadership in the White House and the Pentagon was more to blame.
In a separate House Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both bucked the administration line that congressional resolutions against the Bush?s troop buildup would undercut the morale of American forces in Iraq.
“As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission,” Pace said, however, “the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported.”
Gates agreed. “I think they?re sophisticated enough,” he said, “to understand that that?s what the debate is really about.”
But a Republican committee member, Rep. Duncan Hunter, also a presidential hopeful, remained adamant. “I do not think you can send a message that is going to raise the morale of the troops,” he said, “while at the same time sending a message that we don?t support the mission.”
It?s clear from that comment that while the House Democrats call their resolution against the Bush “surge” only a first step in their end-the-war strategy, the administration line will continue to be that support of it is betrayal of the troops in the field.
Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.
