While positioning on the compromise resolution on the war in Iraq works itself out in the Senate, the Bush/McCain/Lieberman side of the debate is moving forward with a resolution of their own. The White House has reportedly given word that the Bush gang expects some kind of resolution to pass, so they hope to minimize the damage with the least offensive (to them) resolution possible.
And McCain and Lieberman have just the trick.
Trying to stem defections over Iraq, President Bush’s Senate allies want a vote next week calling on the Baghdad government to “make visible concrete progress” toward 11 political, military and economic benchmarks.
The resolution, announced at a hastily called press conference late yesterday, is designed to slow the momentum behind a tougher Iraq measure crafted by Sen. John Warner (R., Va.), the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who usually caucuses with Democrats, is among the sponsors, but the support comes overwhelmingly from Republicans led by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). As recently as Wednesday, Mr. McCain’s office had expected no announcement of an alternative Iraq measure so soon. But with the Warner proposal becoming a serious threat, waiting until next week was no longer feasible. “We want to make sure that it’s out there,” Mr. McCain said.
The key word in this endeavor is “benchmarks.” After decrying the notion of benchmarks for the better part of the last two years, McCain’s resolution relies on them almost entirely. The measure insists on a major commitment of “new Iraqi security forces to partner” with the larger number of U.S. troops, “disarming individual militias as circumstances warrant,” distributing oil resources, and building an independent judiciary.
At first blush, it sounds like the kind of thing war supporters may not like. Indeed, Hugh Hewitt this week argued, “‘Benchmarks’ is Senate code for ‘we are out of here’ later rather than sooner. If Senator McCain insists on ‘benchmarks,’ the damage to his 2008 presidential ambitions will be lasting, as the significant majority of Republican voters don’t want to be 50% for failure or 50% for victory.”
It turns out Hugh has nothing to worry about.
As the WSJ explained:
The resolution doesn’t spell out what options the U.S. should pursue if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fails to meet the benchmarks. And a recent meeting in Baghdad between a House delegation and Iraqi officials including Mr. Maliki showed the limits of Congress’s power to pressure the Iraqi government.
In other words, the benchmarks are entirely hollow. They’re better described as “goals we hope Iraqis might meet at some undefined point in the future.” Failing to meet the benchmarks would be meaningless.
In this sense, McCain is right back to the old joke about the unarmed policeman seeing a criminal and shouting, “Stop! Or I’ll say ‘Stop’ again!” The McCain-Lieberman resolution effectively tells the Iraqis, “Disarm the militias! Or we might ask again sometime soon!”
It is, in other words, exactly what war supporters want to see. Hewitt said as much yesterday, when he argued that is “generally sound and not defeatist in the least.”
If this thing gets 25 votes in the Senate, I’ll be very surprised. And disappointed.