The Republican Calculus on Iraq
“Congressional leaders from both political parties are giving President Bush a matter of months to prove that the Iraq war effort has turned a corner, with September looking increasingly like a decisive deadline,” WaPo is reporting. It is then that the deus ex machina known as Gen. David H. Petraeus will “have a handle on whether the current troop increase [i.e., the "surge"] is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq’s warring factions,” or so he says.
So is September the key month? Maybe. If Petraeus says at that point that the surge isn’t working, then the pressure on Bush to withdraw the bulk of U.S. forces will intensify. But I doubt that Petraeus would be so blunt. More likely, he’ll hedge, saying that the surge is sort of working. (And there is evidence that it is sort of working — the problem is that it’s only sort of working in a limited and illusory way, that is, that the surge is a band-aid, not reconstructive surgery.)
The key won’t be Petraeus’s assessment of the situation, however, but how Republicans respond to that assessment, to what they perceive to be the facts on the ground in Iraq, and to shifts in public opinion. Whether or not the surge is working, or sort of working, or whatever, Republicans — many of them, anyway — have had more than enough of the Iraq War and, with a solid 2006 defeat behind them, are looking ahead anxiously to 2008. Bush, who isn’t facing re-election, can afford to push for the war to continue as is. So can McCain, who’s running as a hardliner against his fellow Republicans. But Republicans in Congress — the ones who aren’t running for president, that is — cannot afford to neglect political reality. And that reality is that the country has turned against the war and is not about to support an extension of the war as is unless there is a clear improvement in Iraq, and perhaps not even then.
And Republicans know that. Hence their calculation.
It made sense — to them, one presumes — to support Bush in opposition to the Democrats’ troop withdrawal bill, insofar as it makes sense not to have it seem as if the Democrats have “won” the issue. But it also makes sense not to go into 2008 supporting Bush’s highly unpopular war. Which means that the Republicans who have had enough of the Iraq War need to figure out how long to continue supporting it before ultimately turning against it — and how to do this seamlessly and without seeming to have “lost”. If Petraeus gives them an opening, perhaps by implying, if not saying so outright, that the results of the surge thus far are inconclusive, that is, by claiming anything other than outright success, these Republicans could take it as the best opportunity to get out well in advance of the 2008 elections.
What Bush will do is another matter, of course. He may not give in to calls for withdrawal even if his own party abandons him in large numbers in Congress. Or he, too, may take the opportunity presented to him.
What is clear, though, is that pressure to withdraw the bulk of U.S. forces will likely mount over the coming months unless there is unambiguous evidence of success in Iraq, which is unlikely. And that means that more and more Republicans could soon be moving over to the Democrats in search of a suitable compromise that includes phased withdrawal. The Democrats just need to wait for enough of them to do so before they once more press Bush on ending his disastrous war.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “The Republican Calculus on Iraq”
And so it should be.
This reader does not buy into “Bush knew it was a lie” nor find fault with his following his beliefs/convictions.
I do find fault with his ability to lead America, to talk to America, to convince America.
For whatever their faults, Roosevelt, Churchill and Reagan knew how to do that. For whatever their strengths, Johnson, Nixon and Bush did not.
He was not, regrettably, the man for the times.
It will be interesting to see what type of “persona” ultimately appeals to Americans in ’08 in light of this.
I think this article is way off. For starters, “Republican Calculus” isn’t going to have a say in when we pull troops back. Bush will not pull out troops because in his Black and White world that is a defeat. He does not understand that this war will never have an outcome in line with his view of what Iraq should be. He will spin this country’s tires forever until Iraq magically turns into a Democracy friendly to the US.
With that in mind there are only two options for Congress, neither of which will happen. First is to defund the troops forcing Bush to withdraw them, which they can’ t do. Literally not supporting our troops with money suddenly makes all those stupid bumperstickers have actual meaning instead of being hollow catchphrases for Bush supporters display their paper thin patriotism. Its political suicide and rightly so.
Second is to impeach Bush, which they don’t have the votes for and would also have to do the same to Cheney. Also not going to happen.
“Republican Calculus” is powerless in the face of Presidential Arithmetic. This entire affair is going to be dumped in the next administrations lap. It is they who will have to make the really tough decisions. This one can’t do that because they don’t even understand the situation.
Ok, just thought of a Plan B for the president. In order to save face, he keeps vetoing any bill the Dems send to him with any constraints whatsoever. Eventually the funding runs out as a result, and when forced to withdraw he can then blame the democrats for losing us the war and endangering our troops. Either the Democrats give up writing bills to force Bush’s hand and looks like the president won, or they force the president to retreat and look like civilians who ruined a military operation. In fact, I’d put real money on this option.
David Broder just wrote a piece in WaPo claiming that Bush plans to keep the troops there until ’08. There was a press release today saying that the military leaders in Iraq are calling for this. Cheney is going to Saudi Arabia after Iraq, and will pass this news along to King Abdullah. It is going to be very hard to get Bush to budge on this issue. He still wields a lot of power with his own party and with conservatives who still support the war. That is why they have stayed with him so far. Remember after one of the war votes in the House, Hugh Hewitt and his Victory Caucus vowed to go after and defeat any GOPer who voted with the Democrats. The next president is going to get saddled with this. The GOP candidates seem to know it as most are opting for a continuation of the Bush policy in Iraq.
Kritter: …Hugh Hewitt and his Victory Caucus vowed to go after and defeat any GOPer who voted with the Democrats. The next president is going to get saddled with this. The GOP candidates seem to know it as most are opting for a continuation of the Bush policy in Iraq.
Kim, I hope you’re wrong. But if not, come 2012 the GOP will be completely sunk (unless by some miracle the “surge” works by then, and the general public will see the GOPers for what they really are.
I hope I’m wrong, too Rambie. But in January that group threatened to mount primary challenges for the 17 Republicans who voted for the first non-binding resolution expressing no-confidence in Bush ‘s ability to prosecute the war. This is what the Democrats are up against.
But, I did hear that 11 GOP House members met with the president to let him know that they will only believe Petraeus’ opinion on the war; Bush’s credibility is shot. Can you imagine having to go to the WH with that kind of message? Its basically saying you’ve lied so much that we no longer believe anything you have to say on this subject. I really hope the tide is turning, because Bush has gotten more support than he deserves. The same people who are the most supportive were the ones who wanted to leave Bosnia before the mission was accomplished- so its all politics.