GOP setting up Senate showdown over war funding 
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has introduced two bills he said would re-focus the US military on its most pressing missions against al Qaeda in Afghanistan while bringing the war in Iraq to an end.
Like pretty much every other measure to change course in the war, Feingold's proposals are expected to fail in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority. But Senate Republicans reportedly are planning to use the debate scheduled for Tuesday to engage in some political grandstanding aimed at painting Democrats as weak on national security.
The GOP believes it can hew to claims that President Bush's "troop surge" has been successful in Iraq because of some decreases in violence in and around Baghdad.
"It's hard to see the downside" of forcing an Iraq debate, a Senate Republican aide tells Roll Call.
Republicans moved forward with their strategy Tuesday, joining Democrats to move Feingold's bill to tie war funding to withdrawal past a procedural hurdle. According to the Associated Press:
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the debate will allow the GOP to cite the "extraordinary progress that's been made in Iraq over the last six months, not only on the military side, but also with civilian reconciliation beginning to finally take hold in the country."
[...]
Democrats said they welcomed the debate, although they accused Republicans of stalling on plans to debate other issues.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that "a civil war rages" in Iraq and shouldn't be the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers.
Although Democrats generally hew toward public opinion against the war, the party seems wary to have this debate now, reports The Hill.
[T]hey are not eager about holding this week’s votes on Iraq because they know they could be used by Republicans looking for more ammunition against their candidates, aides say.
Republicans have made great strides in cementing the impression that the surge has been successful, although critics say promised and necessary political gains have not followed downturns in violence.
Another GOP staffer says the measure to tie war funding to troop drawdowns in Iraq is "not as great a vote for them as it once was." Last year Democrats focused extensively on Iraq legislation after a dramatic takeover of Congress, but President Bush and his Republican allies have thwarted virtually every attempt to change course in Iraq.
One of Feingold's bills would require a redeployment of US troops from Iraq within four months, leaving only enough forces to continue targeted operations on al Qaeda, provide security for US officials and train Iraqi police and security forces. Another bill would force the Bush administration to report on its progress against al Qaeda around the globe.
“Those charged with ensuring we are ready to respond to the global terrorist threat, including Admiral Mullen and General Casey, have already told us the primary threat to the United States is in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and that current deployments to Iraq are unsustainable," Feingold said in a statement released Monday. "There is no reason for us to wait another month or even another day to show the American people Congress is determined to focus on those who attacked us on 9/11, instead of draining our resources in Iraq. There should be broad, bipartisan support for the administration keeping Congress informed, in a classified setting if need be, about how it is achieving our top national security priority of defeating al Qaeda.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is co-sponsoring Feingold's bills, is nonetheless wary about returning to the Iraq debate this week, sources tell Roll Call. And Democrats seem to plan a greater focus on economic measures after the war vote.
Despite the impression of a successful surge, columnist Michael Kinsey, writing in Slate, reminds that the troop increase's No. 1 goal -- stabilizing Iraq enough to begin a withdrawal -- likely will remain out of reach until Bush leaves office.
Can there be any doubt that they would go for a reduction to 100,000 troops—and claim victory—if they had any confidence at all that the gains they brag about would hold at that level of support? The proper comparison isn't to the situation a year ago. It's to the situation before we got there. Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month; that a major American goal would be getting the Iraqi government to temper its "de-Baathification" campaign so that Saddam Hussein's former henchmen could start running things again (because they know how); and "only" 100,000 American troops would be needed to sustain this equilibrium. You might have several words to describe this situation, but success would not be one of them.
While some Republicans have wavered a bit on the war, they are expected to stand strong against changing course, The Hill reports.
"Now they are less likely to defect because doing so would show that Republicans are breaking from McCain, a stalwart supporter of the war, Democrats say," according to reporter Manu Raju. "With violence down and the economy the dominant issue on voters’ minds, there is also less pressure on them to back a withdrawal from Iraq, Republicans say."
Tuesday's debate could cause some extra scrutiny of the president's war policy, at least temporarily. Ultimately, though, observers see the exercise becoming little more than a re-run.
"So don't expect a huge shift in Iraq policy come Tuesday," writes Washington Post blogger Ben Pershing. "Instead, you'll get a debate that you've seen before and will likely see again before the year is out."
 
| 
