Revolt in the Republic

Senators Warner (R-VA), Collins (R-ME) and Coleman (R-MN) are cosponsoring legislation to express their displeasure with the president's plan to deploy 21,500 soldiers to Iraq. While it's not an out-and-out rejection of the president's "new way forward," it's at least a step in the right direction, if not a bit too short. These senators, at least, have seen the recent election results as indicative of their election bids for 2008.

With the introduction of the Warner resolution, five Republican senators are now on record opposing Bush's decision. The resolution's co-sponsors, Warner, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), are all up for reelection next year, as is Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who was included in the resolution's drafting over the weekend.

Another group of senior Republican senators, including Sens. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), are searching for their own avenue to express their concerns.

"The American people on November 7 changed management in the United States Congress. The overriding issue was Iraq," Hagel said. "What you're seeing is representative democracy in action. What you're seeing is the clear attitudes of the American people playing out among their elective representatives."

About time the moderate Repubs got a spine, although the resolution is watered down as compared to the Dem version. I'm more interested in Sen. John McCain's (R-CO) "inclination" to oppose the nomination of General George Casey to the position of Chief of Staff of the Army.

McCain, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, which must confirm Casey's appointment, and a likely presidential candidate in 2008, accused Casey of presiding over "a failed policy" in Iraq, in which McCain said Iraqi forces were expected too quickly to assume growing responsibility for security matters there.
--------
McCain retorted yesterday: "It's taken us nearly four years to get to this desperate situation we're in today. So to think that within three or four months or a short period of time that we could retrieve the situation, I think, is just foolishness."

McCain has previously sought to deny military promotions to officers whose work in Iraq displeased him, including several associated with policies that he said had led to the abuse of U.S. military detainees there. While not promising outright to oppose Casey's appointment, he said, "I have hard questions to ask him, and I'm very skeptical about it."

Sen. Levin (D-MI) has said he is inclined to back Casey.

I don't care if McCain is supporting the surge. He's right in this case, that Casey ought not succeed to the position of Chief of Staff of the Army, especially if it is as a reward for what Casey's done in Iraq. He would poison the force and continue the political strategies of the White House, and we just don't need that. Levin's probably afraid of being labeled "anti-military" if he opposes Casey's nomination. If any of you are in Michigan, call/email Levin and tell him what a lousy choice Casey would make.

Comments

[Recon Miller]

Surge or no surge, if we are going to win, the restrictions must be lifted on engagement. For pete's bleeping sake, we should have learned from Korea and Vietnam, if you allow areas to exist where the baddies know they will be safe, they will bleed you out. If Maliki stops us from entering Sadr City and massacring the Mahdi Army, we should leave. 90% of the stuff happening in Baghdad comes out of there. And 90% of their stuff comes from Iran. Lock down Baghdad, Hit Sadr City, and put some raids into Iran. I may be an E-4, but anybody has got to believe that Iran is stockpiling that stuff near the border. The flow of weapons is easier to manage that way. And for our pyros in SF, it would be a field trip. Start handing the capitol back to Iraqi units, and let the surge leave.

[J.]

I didn't clearly express myself in my post. I do support a surge, a significant surge that would allow troops to disengage and pull out (as opposed to the president's plan), allowing the Iraqi troops to take over. From that point of view, I agree with you, Recon, it's always bad to go into a fight half-assed. Not sure I'm up for launching strikes against Iran yet - the Brits don't seem to think anything's coming from there, and certainly there's already enough explosives in Iraq to make IEDs for a decade more.

[Robot.Economist]

Recon - I'm with you in spirit for the most part. The half-assed measures we've employed are what got us into this situation in the first place. A paltry deployment of troops to Baghdad won't make an appreciable difference on the security situation there (even with the support of a few hundred thousands Kurds and access to Sadr City).

If we really wanted to impose security, it would take a significant boost in troops, coupled with some undesirable tactics - including forcibly depopulating parts of the country and forming strategic hamlets. It would be ugly, cost a lot more in terms of lives and money, but it would get the job done in a year or two.

As for the Iran bit, I am very skeptical of the veracity of Bush administration claims that Iran is exacerbating the situation in Iraq. It just doesn't seem like it would be in their interest.

If their claims bear out though, the U.S. needs to be very careful about how it proceeds. We have virtually no way of controlling how a conflict with Iran escalates, so I think punitive strikes or any minor military incursions won't be as low-cost as people might think. We might get ourselves into a really ugly shooting war in Khuzestan before we realize it.