Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Iraq War in August?

A couple of weekends back on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC's Andrea Mitchell floated the following story: Senate Republicans will effectively abandon the war in Iraq by the late summer unless the Bush escalation succeeds.

MITCHELL: I think the Republicans are going to crack. What I've been told from inside the moderate center of the Republican caucus is that the vote in favor of the president this week -- it was against the president but the Republicans holding for the president -- was misleading. That they really are not in favor of the surge. They don't believe it's going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn't work, they're running.

This view was echoed by Noah Feldman, writing in The New York Times magazine Sunday.

But the `surge" isn't just a way into Iraq -- it is also, for at least some in the administration, a shortcut to getting out of it. If basic security can be achieved even briefly -- especially before the 2008 elections -- Republicans with influence will advocate pulling most troops back while claiming that this time the mission really has been accomplished. It's unlikely that a short-term peace will hold, but at least it might give the U.S. the cover to say that it has not lost the war. If Iraq collapses 6 or 18 or 36 months after U.S. troops are out, Iraqis can then be blamed for the failure. Erstwhile supporters of the war are already starting to justify this plan by hinting darkly that the Iraqis have to take responsibility for themselves -- as if they could be expected to succeed in providing security and basic services when the world's richest superpower has so abjectly failed.

The "Republicans will soon begin work on ending the Iraq War" meme is one that we've heard somewhat frequently in recent years. During the lead up to the 2004 presidential election, some assumed that President Bush would announce a deescalation of the war effort, similar to 1968's "October Surprise" by President Lyndon Johnson that bombing in Vietnam would be halted and that a peace deal was imminent. Likewise, there were those who believed that President Bush would make a noticeable effort to bring home some American troops before the 2006 midterm elections in a move to assuage the concerns of voters, thus lessening the potential downside for Republicans.

Of course President Bush did not draw down American forces before either of the last two elections. What's more, aside from a handful of GOP Congressmen and Senators, the vast majority of Republicans on Capitol Hill have remained loyal the President's Iraq policy, including most of those who faced serious challenges last fall. For every Chuck Hagel or Walter Jones, there are literally dozens of other Republicans who have continued their support for an unending American engagement in Iraq.

And what of the successes of the so-called surge? The early indicators do not look good. According to icasualties.org, which tracks casualties and fatalities in Iraq, Iraqi civilian and security forces and deaths were up more than 11 percent from February to March on a per day basis. April is shaping up to be the deadliest month for American forces in the country in nearly two and a half years. Republicans and pundits can talk about the possibility that the situation in Iraq will fundamentally change for the better within the next six months but it is far from clear that such a change will actually occur no matter how strongly they will it.

In the unfortunate circumstance that the Bush escalation does not bear fruit in successes on the ground in Iraq by August, will there really be a widespread defection among the Republican ranks in Congress? If the past is any indicator, Republicans and the pundits with whom they speak will put out yet another goal for change in another six months -- a process that will be repeated again and again.



Display:


Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

It looks like there is no chance of the Democrats ever doing anything to get the troops out so one can hope that the Republicans do. In fact, it would be a  very smart move by the Republicans to outflank the Democrats on this issue given that the Democrats have vacated the left. As the Democrats scramble to shore up their right-wing credentials the Republicans can appeal to those of us who have lost faith in the Democrats ever finding the nerve to do it.


by Derek G on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 07:08:16 AM EST

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (3.00 / 1)

Not all Democrats have vacated the left on the war.  Feingold, Kerry, Boxer, Sanders, Kennedy, a few more, are stilll trying to end it.

John Edwards is a strong opponent of the war.

Clinton and Obama, however, voted for the odious Gregg Bill in March.

"At the very least, [Clinton and Obama] will face questions" in the future over why they backed Gregg, said former Rep. Tom Andrews (D-Maine), now national director of the anti-escalation group Win Without War.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/2008 -and-counting-watching-clinton-obama-squ irm-on-troop-funding-2007-03-21.html


by littafi on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:22:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

How many voted against the supplemental?


by Derek G on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:54:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards on the occupation (none / 0)

Can you point me to a quote from Edwards that says he supports withdrawal of all US troops?  I don't think his position is substantively different from Clinton's or Obama's.


by jayackroyd on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:54:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on the occupation (none / 0)

Here is John Edwards' Plan.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-re leases/20070214-iraq-plan/

Feb 14, 2007
Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards today laid out a comprehensive proposal for Congress to implement his plan to stop President Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq and begin an immediate withdrawal by capping funding for troops at 100,000, and requiring withdrawal of all combat troops over the next 12-18 months.

"Nearly a month ago, I called on Congress to block the President's escalation of war. Unfortunately, while Congress has been debating Iraq, President Bush has been surging troops into Iraq. The escalation is underway, so blocking it is no longer enough - now we have to take the next step and cap funding to mandate a withdrawal," Edwards said. "We don't need debate; we don't need non-binding resolutions; we need to end this war, and Congress has the power to do it. They should use it now. In order to get the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, we must show them that we are serious about leaving, and the best way to do that is to actually start leaving."

Edwards believes that the only solution to the situation in Iraq is a political solution, which requires all the parties in Iraq to take responsibility for the future of their country. By leaving Iraq, the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community will be forced to engage in the search for a political solution that will end the sectarian violence and create a stable Iraq. Escalating the war sends exactly the wrong signal to the Iraqi people, regional powers and the world.

Edwards' plan for Iraq calls for Congress to:

Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide. In addition, Edwards believes the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria and work to bring about a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through a peace conference. He also believes the U.S. must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.


by littafi on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:53:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards on the occupation (none / 0)

Thanks.

this is stronger than other statements I've seen. Still, I don't see how he can complete withdrawal and an Iraqi training force without bases and force protection.

And I don't see how Iraq will have a national defense in place, including air, armor and logistical support.  Nor do I see how the US can leave that equipment behind under what will be no doubt ultimately an Iranian ally.


by jayackroyd on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 03:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feingold on the Gregg Bill (none / 0)

that Obama and Clinton voted for:

Obama and Clinton also both voted for the Gregg Bill in March, a terrible bill.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/2008 -and-counting-watching-clinton-obama-squ irm-on-troop-funding-2007-03-21.html

2008 and counting: Watching Clinton, Obama `squirm' on troop funding  By Elana Schor   March 22, 2007

When Senate Democrats decided to allow a vote on Sen. Judd Gregg's (R-N.H.) Iraq resolution, which argues that Congress has a constitutional duty to fully fund troops during wartime, they worked hard to depict the measure as rubber-stamping President Bush.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) described Gregg's language as "misleading and baseless" before the March 15 vote. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said it "misinterprets the Constitution."

snip

And the chamber's two most-watched presidential rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), did go ahead and vote for it, even as they court anti-war voters on the trail.


by littafi on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:55:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (3.00 / 1)

It looks like there is no chance of the Democrats ever doing anything to get the troops out so one can hope that the Republicans do.

Excuse me, the Republicans go us into this. They could have gotten us out in 2004, 2005, or 2006, only now that it cost them an election are they acting, or talking about acting. How many people are going to be killed in this vanity surge they supported?


by Alice Marshall on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:50:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

I'm pretty certain that all but 14 or 15 Democrats voted for this disaster as well.


by Derek G on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:53:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (3.00 / 2)

By "pretty certain", you mean "completely wrong", right?

Wikipedia tells me 23 Senators and 133 Representatives voted aginst the War Resolution in 2002.  That included 4 Republicans in the House and 1 Republican in the Senate, as well as 1 Independent in each chamber (both from Vermont).  

The rest were Democrats.

So if you want to say Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans, go right ahead.  But while it's true that a majority of Senate Democrats voted for it, a majority of House Democrats voted against it.  And in any case, the number was far higher than "all but 14 or 15".


by RickD on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:17:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

Yes I was off by a whole 3 senators, off the top of my head. How could I be so wrong?


by Derek G on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:48:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (3.00 / 1)

It looks like there is no chance of the Democrats ever doing anything to get the troops out so one can hope that the Republicans do.

I'm afraid I have to revoke your membership in the reality-based community.  Nothing personal.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:19:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (3.00 / 1)

Oh yes I forgot, giving Bush another 100 billion, with no strings attached ultimately, is just a clever way to end the war.


by Derek G on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:23:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

What reality is this again?  


by RickD on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

The reality that fails to see how funding the war is really a way of stopping the war.


by Derek G on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:49:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, they won't (none / 0)

Not unless Bush does, and Bush won't, so they won't.

As Grover Norquist explained, it's not about Iraq, it's about Bush.  The GOP's lizard-brain base will ONLY back those folks who are 200% behind Bush no matter what.  Period.

Which of course means that anyone the base likes is doomed in '08.


by Phoenix Woman on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:55:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think those up for re-election will (none / 0)

In the unfortunate circumstance that the Bush escalation does not bear fruit in successes on the ground in Iraq by August, will there really be a widespread defection among the Republican ranks in Congress? If the past is any indicator, Republicans and the pundits with whom they speak will put out yet another goal for change in another six months -- a process that will be repeated again and again.

I believe that those up for re-election will jump ship in September. But, actually force Bush to bring the troops home? They won't do it, so I don't know what good it will do to abandon ship.


by rikyrah on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:32:58 AM EST

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (3.00 / 1)

similar to 1968's "October Surprise" by President Lyndon Johnson that bombing in Vietnam would be halted and that a peace deal was imminent.

A peace deal was. It was sabotaged by Anna Chenault. See Hubert Humphrey's biography for details.


by Alice Marshall on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 08:48:11 AM EST

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

bush has said that this is a "generational war, " and that the next Pres will have to deal with the war.  Will the corporate interests that will benefit from a generational presence in Iraq allow a majority of republic congress critters to jump ship?


by anninla on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:33:59 AM EST

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

I think that the number of dead is an inappropriate measure of success or failure of Bush's policies.  Surely there are better indicators out there, such as the number of suicide bombings, curfew efforts, openness of markets or something?  If anything wouldn't a higher death toll (Iraqi or American) indicate that there is more engagement with insurgents?

While I'm not defending the Surge, I just don't see how death tolls correlate with it.  Any help?


by Murdoch on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:35:11 AM EST

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

The surge was supposed to bring about a period of calm  which would allow the various groups to reach a political settlement (peace).  The casualty figures, the acts of Al Sadr, and stories like those told by the merchants visited by McCain suggest that we are not closer to this objective.

I agree that we might imagine many metrics, but since I think it is impossible for the surge to attain its objectives I don't think any of them would be any good.  


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 09:46:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

That would require that Bush announce a goal that the war would supposedly accomplish.  Then, we could devise metrics to measure progress toward this goal.  


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the... (none / 0)

I suppose it would be nice to have a veto-override margin on defunding and troop drawdowns come August since Republicans still haven't the balls to abandon Bush right now, but really, this whole frame seems ridiculous.  Since when has anyone cared a damn what the MINORITY party in Congress has plans to do in six months about ANYTHING?  This frame will exist to provide cover for Republicans who eventually will have to deal with 2008 elections more urgently than they need to continue fluffing Bush.  Media will of course be of service any way they can to these craven, disgusting Republicans, who I would hold personally responsible for the next 600 American soldiers likely to die by August 2007 as "the surge" gains nothing for anyone.  Their magical plan is to cover their asses politically, and Democrats don't need to feed the framing that helps them do this.  Democrats should makes sure their message and their efforts focus on PREVENTING those 600 pointless and tragic deaths NOW.


by dominiccjr on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:07:00 AM EST

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon (none / 0)

As I said yesterday, it is to the Dems advantage in '08 to be able to run against the war again.  The flip side of this coin is that it is to the GOP's political advantage to have the war ended by '08 (which is really a "reduction of disadvantage" than a true advantage).  I would not for a second be surprised to see a large number of "Blue compromised" Republicans jump ship and join a veto-proof majority on the left to end this disaster before the next election.  It is the ONLY chance that people like Sununu and Smith and Coleman have to salvage their jobs (and even that may not be enough at this point...).

If there are enough Republicans to form a veto proof majority, there is no way that any Dems can continue to support the war and still maintain any credibilty.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:18:19 AM EST

Short answer (none / 0)

Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Iraq War in August?

Only so they can roll out a new product in September.

New York Times
EDITORIAL DESK  September 14, 2002, Saturday
Never Forget What?

By FRANK RICH (NYT) 1538 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 15 , Column 1

"...Candor is so little prized in Washington that you want to shake the hand of anyone who dares commit it. So cheers to Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, for telling The Times's Elisabeth Bumiller the real reason that his boss withheld his full-frontal move on Saddam Hussein until September: `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.' Mr. Card has taken some heat for talking about a war in which many may die as if it were the rollout of a new S.U.V. But he wasn't lying, and history has already proved him right. This campaign has been so well timed and executed that the new product already owns the market. The unofficial motto of the 9/11 anniversary may have been `Never forget,' but by 9/12, if not before, the war on Al Qaeda was already fading from memory as the world was invited to test-drive the war on Iraq...."



543,895 votes
by Michael Bersin on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:24:37 AM EST

The Republicans will no more abandon Iraq... (none / 0)

...than the Republicans abandoned Vietnam in order to invade Cambodia.


by palamedes on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:38:50 PM EST

Neocons and Wingers still rule (none / 0)

First. The Republican Party is increasingly dominated by the far right-wingers. In most of the country the moderates have been purged. Here in Colorado, all three GOP Representatives and the lone GOP Senator are long-term beholden to the authoritarian and militaristic vision. The moderate Republicans have already left the Party, so there is no one to restrain the Conservatives.

Secondly. I'm sure any remaining moderate Republicans would love Bush to take the Iraq garrotte off their necks, but the neocons in the White House have too much invested. It isn't just about reputation and saving face. There are contracts for Iraq development projects, oil concessions, contracting firms, Republican donors in the Cheney Industrial Complex. They really believe that US interests require a confrontational geopolitical game of staying in Iraq, surrounding Iran, keeping tensions high, keep their base energized by waving the red flag. They also have deep financial interests in not leaving Iraq.

Nevertheless, we should keep up the pressure. Splitting the moderate Republicans off from the neocons is a safety valve against the neocons. If the neocons were to do something crazy like bombing Iran, it would increase the likelihood of splitting the Republican Party.


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 12:54:39 PM EST

Re: Are Republicans (none / 0)

The arrogance of that Feldman bastard.  If Iraqi society collapses in 12 to 36 months? Excuse me? Iraqi society has already collapsed and George Bush and neo-con whores like Feldman are responsible for it.  What's funny is that bastards like Feldman were so gun ho about the illegal invasion of Iraq that they cant even see the pain they have brought upon a people who did nothing to them--I take that back, the only thing the iraqis did to Bush, Cheney and neocons whores like Feldman is to be sitting on top of the 3rd largest known Oil reserves in the planet.

By the way, at a forum at Columbia University about two years ago Feldman admitted that the invasion of Iraq was not worthy.  Andrew sullivan was there too.


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:25:07 PM EST

Re: Are Republicans (none / 0)

Someone needs to start asking Obama, clinton, and edwards why the US should be building permanent bases in the sovereign country of Iraq, and what's their justification for that? So long as the democrats support building permanent bases in iraq, the iraqis will never be free.

Down with the Occupation!


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:28:27 PM EST

Re: Are Republicans Really Going to Abandon the Ir (none / 0)

But... But.. the surge is working... some say that there are encouraging signs upon the ground!!  What they are, I don't know.. but Fox NEws says the surge is working, so it must be! </snark>

Thanks,

Mike


by lordmikethegreat on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 01:58:00 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.