John Murtha’s “readiness strategy,” which would insist that only troops with adequate training and equipment be sent to Iraq, seems to be losing favor with enough Democratic lawmakers that passage seems unlikely.
House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party’s own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
“If you strictly limit a commander’s ability to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, that kind of inflexibility could put some missions and some troops at risk,” said Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who personally lodged his concerns with Murtha. […]
“Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off funding or even conditioning those funds,” said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading Democratic moderate, who called Murtha’s whole effort “clumsy.”
House Dems are still eyeing the $100 billion war-spending bill that the president ultimately must sign to keep the war effort on track, but Murtha’s proposals may not have the necessary support. The WaPo noted that the spending measure may offer the White House a “waiver” so that Bush could deploy troops who are not fully combat-ready, but the president would have to “publicly acknowledge that he is deploying troops with less than a year’s rest from combat, that he is extending combat tours of troops in Iraq, or that he is sending units into battle without full training in counterinsurgency or urban warfare.”
That would be embarrassing for the Bush gang, and it might be a helpful admission, but it doesn’t address the real problem. The war would continue, escalation would be uninterrupted, and nothing of substance would change.
As John Kerry said yesterday, “I’ve had enough of ‘nonbinding.'” What does he have in mind? Kerry and some other top Senate Dems, including Biden and Levin, are targeting the original 2002 resolution that gave Bush a green light to pursue a war in the first place.
The Politico had a pretty thorough report on the plan, which basically would scrap the old AUMF and create a new resolution that would pull out combat troops starting in March 2008.
Senate Democrats are backing a pullout of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of March, 2008 — a deadline similar to that recommended recently by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, according to Democratic insiders.
The March 31, 2008, deadline is included in a new authorization resolution for the U.S. military campaign in Iraq, where President Bush plans to send another 21,500 U.S. troops to help quell the violence there.
The resolution is being drafted by Democratic Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees. The pair is working closely with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in crafting their proposal, which they plan to unveil early next week.
The new resolution would restrict U. S. military efforts in Iraq to training and logistical support for the Iraqi army, counter-terrorism operations and securing the Iraqi borders, especially with Iran and Syria, said the Democratic insiders, who would speak only on the condition of anonymity as the drafting proceeds.
“We gave the president that power to destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein,” Biden said of the 2002 resolution in a speech last week before the Brookings Institution. “The WMD was not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.”
So, is it a good plan? I guess so, though it seems to be an entirely defensive exercise, designed to rebut inevitable charges. It doesn’t affect funding, so Republicans can’t attack and Lieberman shouldn’t jump. It doesn’t “micromanage,” so that takes another far-right talking point off the table. It’s not a “precipitous” withdrawal, so it should maintain strong public support. What’s more, since Dems will no doubt be looking for some kind of cover, they can point to the Iraq Study Group to bolster support, since it was the ISG that targeted March 2008 in its report.
This is about setting a deadline, which many of us have been advocating for a longtime. Can it garner some GOP votes? Will Dems stick together on this? Stay tuned.