The Nervous Caucus

Is the number of Senate Republican defectors from President Bush's Iraq strategy about to rise? Probably, but not in a way that would bring an end to the war anytime soon.

The recent public comments of two senators who have been stalwart allies of the president caused murmuring in Republican circles that Bush's congressional support is about to erode. On May 25, hours after Congress sent a war funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal to Bush's desk, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said in a press conference that "the handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction in the fall, and I expect the president to lead it. . . . I think we are looking for a new direction in the fall."

Then, less than 48 hours after McConnell's remarks, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions told CBS News, "By September, when General Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down." A top GOP senator told me last week he estimates up to a third of the 49 Senate Republicans are nervous about developments in Iraq and may move from Bush's position come fall. Meanwhile, an "influential Republican strategist" told National Review Online that up to half of the Republican Senate caucus could vote against Bush on future war appropriations if there are no improvements in Iraq by September.

That's when Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, plans to return to Washington and update Congress and the American public on the conduct of the war. The timing of the September report is somewhat arbitrary. According to Coalition sources, it was in January that Petraeus decided on late summer or early fall as the best time to assess the new strategy, the foremost goal of which is the security of the Iraqi people. The assessment will be comprehensive, examining Iraqi security, governance, economics, and the rule of law. It will be done in cooperation with the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It will sketch various potential courses of action and speculate on the likely consequences of each. But any decision on which course to follow will be made by policymakers in Washington.

Petraeus, Crocker, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates discussed the idea when the secretary visited Iraq in mid-April. Gates was receptive. The following week Petraeus visited Washington, where Congress was in the midst of passing a supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq that included a timetable for American withdrawal. During a press conference at the Pentagon, Petraeus mentioned the decision to report on the war's progress in September. The media and political class immediately seized on September as a turning point. Republicans kept telling everyone to give the surge "till September." They never said what would happen afterward.

That's probably because no one knows what will happen. Chances are, if the level of violence in Iraq has not been reduced by the time Petraeus makes his report, more Republicans will jump ship. A member of the Senate Republican leadership says the GOP caucus is uniformly disappointed with the inability of the Iraqis to pass legislation that could lead to political reconciliation. Congress included language in its latest Iraq appropriations bill that would penalize the Iraqis if they do not meet certain "benchmarks," while also giving Bush the power to waive those penalties. The author of the benchmark language was Virginia Republican John Warner, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee who is considering a move away from the president. Warner is up for reelection next year.

This week Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander plans to introduce legislation concerning the Iraq Study Group (ISG). The ISG report proposed that the United States transition from a combat to an advisory role in Iraq, embedding American soldiers with Iraqi units and concentrating on force protection and counterterrorism while drawing down U.S. forces. The goals: reducing the American "footprint" in Iraq, training the Iraqi army, and negotiating with Iran and Syria. When ISG authors James Baker and Lee Hamilton presented their report last December, Bush rejected their findings in favor of surging troops to Baghdad and adopting Gen. Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy.

Alexander's legislation would make the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group official U.S. policy. What that means is unclear. Alexander and his cosponsors--three other Republicans and four Democrats--unveiled their plan only recently. The idea has been germinating since Bush's rejection of the ISG. That decision surprised Alexander, who brought the subject up with Bush during a February meeting. In March, Alexander delivered a statement on the Senate floor saying he was disappointed that Bush hadn't taken the study group more seriously. Its recommendations, Alexander said, offered the best long-term, bipartisan strategy for American engagement in Iraq.

Alexander and Mark Pryor, the Arkansas Democrat, discussed the issue, but nothing else happened. It was Colorado Democrat Ken Salazar who approached Alexander with the idea of writing a bill that would enshrine the ISG approach in law. Alexander and Salazar have enjoyed working with each other in the past and decided to go for it.

Alexander approached Utah Republican Bob Bennett, a close adviser to minority leader McConnell. Salazar brought on board Democrats Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Meanwhile, Alexander persuaded New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg, another close adviser to McConnell who also has personal ties to President Bush, to add his name as cosponsor. Finally, New Hampshire Republican John Sununu heard of the discussions and asked to have his name added to the list. Both Alexander and Sununu are up for reelection in 2008.

McConnell, who is also up for reelection next year, seems receptive. Even Bush had some kind things to say about the ISG in a recent press conference. Yet Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, has given no indication that the Senate will debate Alexander's legislation. The bill's provisions don't have to stand alone, however. They can be added as amendments to other legislation--and in the months ahead there will be plenty of legislation dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's because the debate over the war is largely a Kabuki play performed for the Democrats' political benefit. Now some Republicans want a cameo role. Last month's showdown between Bush and Congress over Iraq spending demonstrated that the president's congressional critics are mostly talk. Democrats could not muster the votes necessary to overturn Bush's veto and legislate war policy. Meanwhile, they are unwilling to take the blame if money for the war runs out while U.S. troops are in combat. As the 2008 election approaches, they will be even less willing. So Bush's critics hem and haw, enjoying public support and media accolades while knowing their rhetoric will have little to no effect on the conduct of the war. Democratic senators have told Reid that any week they spend not talking about Iraq is a bad week. There have been dozens of Iraq votes in the first five months of the 110th Congress. And Reid plans to reignite the Iraq debate every six weeks, regardless of the circumstances.

]The Republicans are torn between supporting the war effort and what they see as saving their own skins. They want to make the 2008 elections a referendum on the Democratic Congress's fiscal and social policies, while the Democrats want to have another election on Bush and Iraq. Republicans facing difficult reelections probably will defect from Bush on Iraq in a desperate attempt to change the subject, knowing their criticism is just as inconsequential as the Democrats'. Bush's GOP critics already include Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, Oregon's Gordon Smith, Minnesota's Norm Coleman, Ohio's George Voinovich, and Maine's Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Kansas's Sam Brownback was open to the surge before he was against it.

The most prominent Senate hawk is John McCain, but his presidential campaign often takes him away from Washington. That leaves most of the pro-war lobbying to McCain's fellow Arizonan Jon Kyl, who is number three in the minority leadership, and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham. Oklahoma's Tom Coburn is also important. In February, Coburn was among the 10 Republican senators who voted against confirming Gen. George Casey, Petraeus's predecessor, as Army chief of staff.

Among the ten anti-Casey Republicans was Missouri's Kit Bond, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee whose son is serving in Iraq. Bond's colleagues say he is a key player in fostering Republican support for the president's policy. Bond is no blind follower of the president, however. He is critical of the administration's decision to reject the original chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Jay Garner, in favor of Paul Bremer. He is critical of the scandal-plagued Iraqi police. And he shares in others' frustrations with the Iraqi political class.

Yet he also says the new war strategy is showing results. In early May, Bond visited Iraq with Republican senators Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Olympia Snowe of Maine and California GOP congressman Darrell Issa. One day the group drove into downtown Ramadi in a Cougar Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle. Not long ago in Ramadi, al Qaeda ruled. When Bond visited, the place was--relatively speaking--quiet. Bond, his colleagues, and Maj. Gen. W.E. Gaskin--the commander of Multi-National-Force-West--along with two U.S. Marines carrying M16s, took in the old city college and visited Marines. They stood at Firecracker Corner, so called because of all the firefights that have taken place there. They saw a mosque that American soldiers had rebuilt.

Bond was amazed. To him, the progress was palpable. Months ago, a visit to Ramadi was unthinkable. But the Sunni sheikhs who dominate Anbar politics had turned against al Qaeda in Iraq and joined forces with the Americans. Things were changing.

When the group returned to America, Bond did everything he could to get the word out to his fellow GOP senators. It wasn't enough. Snowe issued her own press release, written before the visit to Ramadi. "So far, this trip certainly underscores the fact that there is not a military solution to the problem," she said. Snowe never issued a release about what she saw in Ramadi and elsewhere in Anbar province. Her silence underscores lesson number one in the debate over the war: When American politicians look at Iraq, they see what they want to see.

Matthew Continetti is associate editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.