The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

I agree with VoteVets.org claim that Randy Kuhl is "close to breaking with the President on Iraq". But what does that mean?

My take is that Kuhl (and Jim Walsh and a number of other Republicans) will become part of a compromise that will lead to the beginning of a withdrawal after September, or perhaps even earlier. I base this on a pretty basic analysis of the factions in this debate.

There are four broad groups of opinion on Iraq in Congress, which can be roughly characterized as follows:

1. The No-Compromise Anti-War Faction: This group has been vocally opposed to the war since it began. They won't vote for any kind of funding for war, even with strings attached. Because of their position, they've essentially isolated themselves from the debate and ensuing compromise that will end the war. Such is the irony that defines the existence of Dennis Kucinich: on the rare occasions when he's right, he's right too soon, and resented for it.
2. Get Out Sooner Pragmatists: This group might have voted for the war, but they've decided that the war just isn't getting us anywhere. This group favors some form of deadline-setting now, which will lead to an orderly withdrawal over the next few months. The vast majority of Democrats are in this group. They recognize the risk that the Iraqi government will collapse upon pullout, but they think this collapse is inevitable anyway and isn't worth sacrificing more lives.
3. Wait For September Pragmatists: This group is composed of those who want to judge the effects of the surge, and who plan to get out after that. They believe that the surge will buy some breathing room for the Iraqi government to come to terms on some of the most sticky federalist issues, but their patience with the Iraqis is nearing the end. This group is composed of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who understand that an open-ended commitment in Iraq will be damaging to the country (and, in the case of Republicans, deadly to the Republican party). Though he still uses the rhetoric of a Bush loyalist, John Boehner may have been hinting that he's in this group during his appearance on Fox News last weekend. Unless the Petraeus report in September is all roses and sunshine, this group will vote for withdrawal in the Fall.
4. No-Compromise War Supporters: This is the position of the Bush Administration and its loyalists. Members of this group are comfortable with rhetoric containing terms like "victory" and "completing the mission". Like the no-compromise Democrats, this group risks irrelevance because their position is out of sync with reality in Iraq.

I don't think this analysis is anything more than conventional wisdom, but notice one thing: group (2) and group (3) merge into one after September. At that point a large majority of Congress will be comfortable supporting deadlines in Iraq. In other words, September is the nominal beginning of the end of the Iraq War.

Randy Kuhl has toned down his war rhetoric lately. His stock response to anti-war ads had contained "white flag" rhetoric. Kuhl's response to the VoteVets ad is a much more sedate, though part of that might be because it's just not a good idea to use surrender rhetoric against a retired general who led troops in combat. No matter, I think that he's going to pivot in September, and I think he'll do so in part because position (3) will become the majority Republican view.

The interesting question is whether (2) and (3) can move closer, sooner. VoteVets is betting that they can change a few minds in the third group, Randy Kuhl among them. Those who argue with VoteVets' timing probably believe that the surge should be given time to accomplish its salvage mission. Those who think VoteVets are on-track probably believe that the surge is more of the same solution that hasn't worked before.

I think that the VoteVets ads are worth a try. Though the Septemberists' strategy is internally consistent, it's hard to maintain in the face of continuing bad news from Iraq coupled with evidence of strain on the Armed Forces at home. Jim Walsh is clearly running scared, and for good reason: defending an arbitrary deadline is brutal business. With the country badly wanting to close this chapter, the urge to hasten the inevitable end will become ever more seductive to politicians who want to keep their jobs.