Randy Kuhl voted for the version of the Iraq appropriation which contained only non-binding benchmarks [pdf]. Though this bill is being portrayed as a "loss" for the Democrats, I'm not convinced that it was a great victory or defeat for anyone. Instead, it was the first act in a drama, and the stage is set for a very interesting September for Randy Kuhl and other Congressional Republicans.
My analysis of this vote and the state of debate starts with a simple proposition: George Bush has no intention of ending the war in Iraq during his term as President. I don't think that's too controversial, and if you accept it, the corollary is that the interests of Bush and the interests of his party begin to diverge toward the end of 2007. At that point, Bush will be more concerned about his legacy, and his party will be more concerned about the next election.
If you accept the premise that Bush will find whatever excuse he needs to keep troops in Iraq, and the notion that this position isn't in the best interests of the Republican party, then the most recent historical political parallel for the way that Congress and the President will interact isn't Vietnam -- it's Watergate*. During the Watergate crisis, Nixon was able to stay in office as long as he had the support of his party. Even though Democrats had been calling for his removal for years, his resignation was precipitated by quiet words from respected Republican leaders like Barry Goldwater. Similarly, Bush will only begin compromising on Iraq when he gets the word from key Republicans that the votes aren't there to sustain the war.
So, instead of looking to Democrats to somehow leverage their tiny majority into a veto-proof winning bill, we should be looking for fault lines within the Republican caucus. Viewed from that perspective, the Democrats' loss in yesterday's vote was their inability to craft a bill that would find a split between absolute Bush loyalists and more centrist Republicans. Part of that failure was due to timing: Republicans can wait until Fall to see how Iraq is doing before getting serious about their future. But part of it was probably due to mediocre leadership and the desire of the Democrats to get troops funded before Memorial Day.
Even though the Democrats were unable to find a crack in the first act of the war-ending drama, the fault line is there. Jim Walsh (NY-25) will be one of the first Republicans to crack. I think Randy Kuhl is made of sterner stuff, but I will be surprised if he isn't one of the Republicans who ultimately votes for a bi-partisan bill that will end the war.
------
* I'm not drawing a parallel between the corruption of the Nixon administration and the Bush presidency. My point is solely about the politics of how party members in Congress turn against their president.
Comments
The President has stopped sneering at the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, and the Times reports that a 50% reduction in troops, to begin early enough for the '08 election, is "being discussed" at the WH. You are right on target, Rottenchester.
WMDs, Liberation, Democratization have all run their course and now, according to the article:
"The officials cautioned that no firm plans have emerged from the discussions. But they said the proposals being developed envision a far smaller but long-term American presence, centering on three or four large bases around Iraq. Mr. Bush has told recent visitors to the White House that he was seeking a model similar to the American presence in South Korea."
If that can be achieved, we will be able to declare victory and Bush will have his legacy.
The leaks (more like a gentle spray) are clearly intended to refresh the Republicans in Congress and dampen the zeal of the Democrats who plan to keep hammering away at the war thing in upcoming legislation.
Permanent bases may be Bush's intention, with the South Korea comparison giving him a "victory", but I think the sticking point in that will be the desire of the Iraqi government to get rid of US troops entirely.
One of the little-discussed but interesting parts of the appropriations bill is this clause:
The President of the United States, in respecting the sovereign rights of the nation of Iraq, shall direct the orderly redeployment of elements of U.S. forces from Iraq, if the components of the Iraqi government, acting in strict accordance with their respective powers given by the Iraqi Constitution, reach a consensus as recited in a resolution, directing a redeployment of U.S. forces.
I have to believe that the Iraqis want us completely out, and this clause might be the way that they can do it. I think John Warner put it in - he's no dummy and I think he and a few other smart Iraq watchers are expecting the Iraqi government to pull the ripcord before we do.
I think that we can assume that from here on out the discussion will be about how and to what extent we withdraw from Iraq. McCain is toast and the neocons are in disarray. But if Obama, for example, were to suggest that we withdraw all our military elements from Iraq, he could forget the Presidency.
The next President will need those large, well-protected bases, unless of course, we stop using foreign oil to fuel our military and forget about influencing events in the Middle East. We don't have another trillion dollars to spend on different approach.
I agree that we're going to want a continuing presence, including bases, in Iraq. I just wonder if the Iraqis are going to allow it. The Kurds are probably OK with a US presence, but the Shiite and Sunni factions might want us out completely.
For the immediate future, the Iraqis have no choice. Apparently 2/3 of them want us out, and 2/3 of them recognize that we have to stay just to maintain the level of order that exists today (NYT 5/27).
In five to ten years, if a stable government exists in Iraq, it will have the option of telling us to leave. I keep getting back to the Phillipine example: Once they became a democracy they changed their constitution, which got us out of Clark and Subic Bay. But our special forces are still there, contrary to their constitution. Or Cuba. If the superpower wants it, it gets it.
A silly example, but think of it: For a couple of trillion dollars we could have built an artificial island in the Gulf and put our bases there, but we chose the Iraq option instead.
The article you reference is depressing - esp. Tony Zinni's comments at the end. He opposed the war but still sees no good solution other than a continued presence for another year, then a phased pullout.
A friend of mine has a saying: "It's easy to fuck things up. It's the unfucking that's hard." Here's a great example.
The interesting thing is that for a country of people that so desperately want us out they show it in unusual way. It's interesting how so many have started now to step forward and help rat out the insurgents. I think that we need to stop focusing no this war and get to matters that affect the American people.
I don't really understand your point, Angel. I think ratting out insurgents could be consistent with wanting us out, especially since a lot of the insurgent violence is focused on innocent civilians, not just US troops.
Your last sentence is perhaps wishful thinking, since the conduct of the war is destroying the credibility of your party. As long as we are at war, much of the focus of the people and the media will be on the war, as it should be when we're spending trillions and sacrificing thousands of young men and women.