Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Boston Globe
April 4, 2008 Will argue that war's high cost is not worth it
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- Lacking the votes to end the war, Democratic leaders said yesterday they will try to make the US troop surge in Iraq "irrelevant" by shifting the war debate away from the impact of the recent US offensive and instead make the case that the price paid in lives, treasure, and military readiness was not worth it.
"The surge is a tactical concept that was meant to create the kinds of conditions for political reconciliation and negotiation, but whatever has been achieved is incremental and incidental," Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview.
Kennedy, along with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, sponsored a resolution yesterday honoring the more than 4,000 American troops who have died in the five-year-old conflict, a symbolic move that sought to cast the war in the past and set the stage for an end to US combat operations when Bush leaves office.
"From Lexington and Concord and Gettysburg, to Normandy and Iwo Jima, to Korea and Vietnam, to Iraq and Afghanistan today, these heroes are part of a long line of courageous patriots who stood their ground with uncommon valor and sacrificed for all of us," Kennedy said in introducing the measure on the Senate floor.
The Democratic strategy is an acknowledgement that the ultimate fate of US involvement in Iraq will be determined at the polls during the presidential election this fall. Voters will choose between the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain, who supports a long-term US combat role in Iraq, and Democratic contenders Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, both of whom promise to bring home the vast majority of US troops.
The House of Representatives, with a sizable Democratic majority, has passed numerous amendments since early 2007 setting timetables for US troop withdrawals or seeking to place limitations on some of the war funding. But in the Senate, where the Democratic majority is razor-thin, each attempt to pass antiwar legislation has failed because the Democrats don't have enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.
Despite recent signs in Iraq that the security gains of the surge may be unraveling, that math does not appear to have changed significantly, according to the lawmakers and their aides.
"The votes just aren't there," said an aide to one House Democratic leader, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "That hasn't changed."
Indeed, most Republicans still support the current strategy of reducing the size of US forces by this summer to the level of January 2007, about 130,000 troops, then making further reductions only as security conditions on the ground warrant.
"There is widespread agreement that the Petraeus plan and the surge of troops has been a military success," Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said yesterday. "We now have more troops going out than going in."
On Tuesday and Wednesday, General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the chief American diplomat, are expected to enumerate to Congress the security successes in Iraq over the past year, which they say have allowed the Iraqi government to make headway in reconciling the fractured country's political and religious differences.
A recent spike in violence between Shi'ite militias and US and Iraqi troops, however, has raised new doubts that the security gains - which depended heavily on a cease-fire by Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite militia and new security arrangements with some former US foes in the Sunni community - will last.
"We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Petraeus yesterday during a Capitol Hill news conference.
"The stretch and strain on our military is like never before," added Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I am terribly worried about this."
Democrats say they are still looking for ways to affect Iraq policy this year - including possibly giving President Bush only a portion of the money he wants for continued operations there - but they are ultimately setting their sights on the presidential election. Both Republicans and Democrats say the outcome will, more than any other factor, influence when the war will end.
"The Republicans have chosen a nominee who has no daylight between himself and President Bush on this topic," said Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
"The Republicans are not going to pull the rug out from under the nominee."
Kerry said the Iraq policy will change after the presidential election.
"You have to change the dynamics," Kerry said. "I think November is going to do that. Until then you are in this limbo."
To end the war, added Kennedy, "fundamentally, we need the White House back."
Farah Stockman of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
April 4, 2008 Will argue that war's high cost is not worth it
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- Lacking the votes to end the war, Democratic leaders said yesterday they will try to make the US troop surge in Iraq "irrelevant" by shifting the war debate away from the impact of the recent US offensive and instead make the case that the price paid in lives, treasure, and military readiness was not worth it.
"The surge is a tactical concept that was meant to create the kinds of conditions for political reconciliation and negotiation, but whatever has been achieved is incremental and incidental," Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview.
Kennedy, along with the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, sponsored a resolution yesterday honoring the more than 4,000 American troops who have died in the five-year-old conflict, a symbolic move that sought to cast the war in the past and set the stage for an end to US combat operations when Bush leaves office.
"From Lexington and Concord and Gettysburg, to Normandy and Iwo Jima, to Korea and Vietnam, to Iraq and Afghanistan today, these heroes are part of a long line of courageous patriots who stood their ground with uncommon valor and sacrificed for all of us," Kennedy said in introducing the measure on the Senate floor.
The Democratic strategy is an acknowledgement that the ultimate fate of US involvement in Iraq will be determined at the polls during the presidential election this fall. Voters will choose between the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain, who supports a long-term US combat role in Iraq, and Democratic contenders Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, both of whom promise to bring home the vast majority of US troops.
The House of Representatives, with a sizable Democratic majority, has passed numerous amendments since early 2007 setting timetables for US troop withdrawals or seeking to place limitations on some of the war funding. But in the Senate, where the Democratic majority is razor-thin, each attempt to pass antiwar legislation has failed because the Democrats don't have enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster.
Despite recent signs in Iraq that the security gains of the surge may be unraveling, that math does not appear to have changed significantly, according to the lawmakers and their aides.
"The votes just aren't there," said an aide to one House Democratic leader, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "That hasn't changed."
Indeed, most Republicans still support the current strategy of reducing the size of US forces by this summer to the level of January 2007, about 130,000 troops, then making further reductions only as security conditions on the ground warrant.
"There is widespread agreement that the Petraeus plan and the surge of troops has been a military success," Senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said yesterday. "We now have more troops going out than going in."
On Tuesday and Wednesday, General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the chief American diplomat, are expected to enumerate to Congress the security successes in Iraq over the past year, which they say have allowed the Iraqi government to make headway in reconciling the fractured country's political and religious differences.
A recent spike in violence between Shi'ite militias and US and Iraqi troops, however, has raised new doubts that the security gains - which depended heavily on a cease-fire by Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite militia and new security arrangements with some former US foes in the Sunni community - will last.
"We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned Petraeus yesterday during a Capitol Hill news conference.
"The stretch and strain on our military is like never before," added Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I am terribly worried about this."
Democrats say they are still looking for ways to affect Iraq policy this year - including possibly giving President Bush only a portion of the money he wants for continued operations there - but they are ultimately setting their sights on the presidential election. Both Republicans and Democrats say the outcome will, more than any other factor, influence when the war will end.
"The Republicans have chosen a nominee who has no daylight between himself and President Bush on this topic," said Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
"The Republicans are not going to pull the rug out from under the nominee."
Kerry said the Iraq policy will change after the presidential election.
"You have to change the dynamics," Kerry said. "I think November is going to do that. Until then you are in this limbo."
To end the war, added Kennedy, "fundamentally, we need the White House back."
Farah Stockman of the Globe staff contributed to this report.