House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her colleagues yesterday that the non-binding resolution being debated on the House floor is the first of several steps. “A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor,” she said.
We don’t know, however, exactly what that’s going to be. According to The Politico, House Dems don’t want to use the power of the purse, and appear to be eyeing a gradual strategy that will limit the administration’s options.
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict, rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself. […]
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That’s a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.
In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“There’s a D-Day coming in here, and it’s going to start with the supplemental and finish with the ’08 [defense] budget,” said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.
The plan may actually have a chance. As Brad Plumer noted, “[N]ot many Republicans will want to vote for sending troops into combat without adequate equipment and training.”
Tom Mazzie, currently working with Americans Against Escalation of the War in Iraq, calls the plan the “readiness strategy,” and said, “What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without cutting off funding.”
Here’s how it’s likely to proceed:
If the Senate does not approve these new funding restrictions, or if Senate Republicans filibuster the supplemental bill, Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership would then be able to ratchet up the political pressure on the White House to accede to their demands by “slow-walking” the supplemental bill. Additionally, House Democrats could try to insert the Murtha provisions into the fiscal 2008 defense authorization and spending bills, which are scheduled to come to the floor later in the year.
“We will set benchmarks for readiness,” said a top Democratic leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. If enacted, these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops. “We are not cutting funding for any [unit] in Iraq,” said the aide, who admitted the Democratic maneuver would not prevent the president from sending some additional forces to Baghdad. “We want to limit the number who can go … We’re trying to build a case that the president needs to change course.”
The strategy is being backed by a multimillion-dollar TV ad campaign, which will presumably pressure wavering Dems and vulnerable Republicans on this.
I don’t know all of the details, but for what it’s worth, the right seems to be nearly apoplectic about Murtha’s plan, which leads me to think it probably has merit. Stay tuned.