Final Vote… Lose 56-44. Lost Warner, picked up Johnson, but no new GOPers. I guess Bush succeeded in convincing enough Republicans that the surge was working and that was enough to continue the policy. The next battle is the $50 billion supplemental — we’ll see if the Dems roll over or play hardball.

Levin just announced that the vote will begin at 5:25PM (EDT).

NOTE: Jim Webb just put a fact sheet into the record regarding his amendment — it is on his website as a pdf file so I thought I would link to it HERE

UPDATE (3:25PM): Now Joe Lieberman (CT-Lieberman) is using the same argument — at least a vote for a deadline or to cut off funds is an honest vote to end the war — this is a backdoor way to undermine Petreaus. He then claims that he admires those who will at least debate it directly — then says that they don’t do that because there isn’t the support in teh chamber for withdrawal. But there is support— just not super-majority support. Joe now says this will force them (the soldiers) into a position where they fail. He says most of the soldiers he talks to are proud of their mission and believe in their mission — he claims they are reenlisting at remarkable number. “Do you really want to burden them and their families in a way we can never make up for? Then go on this path of defeat.” OK this is ridiculous — which is the worse burden I would like to know– having their spouse in Iraq for 15 months and only home for 10, or letting them stay longer in that dangerous theater of battle? The rhetoric of Iraq War supporters is insane in its Soviet-like logic.

UPDATE (3:03PM): Do the Republicans just read off the smae talking points every time? Jim Bunning (R-KY) has a difficult time making sense under normal circumstances, but again he says that this amendment’s intent is to undermine Petreaus. He warns us that it is dangerous to send troops into the field without the resources they need to get the job done — In other words the previous four years of a lack of proper armor for the troops, and less safe vehicles and other resources to protect our troops, were dangerous — oh but those aren’t the kind of resources Bunning was talking about.

UPDATE (2:40PM): Jon Kyl (R-AZ) I think just argued that the U.S. soldiers who train the Iraqi troops need to stay longer and be in the theater more so that they can “fight as one.” Wait — aren’t the Iraqi troops supposed to be trained so they can Stand Up as U.S. troops Stand Down?

After the usual claptrap from Kit Bond (R-MO) who decried that political gamesmanship of the Democrats on this amendment (stating that this is obviously a backdoor way to undermine the military), Jim Webb has taken to the floor to explain the actual training that is needed for individual troops and what they most go through when they return to the USA after being in Iraq and Afghanistan, going month-by-month. One nice aspect to the way Webb debates is that he almost always focuses on facts and rarely rises to general political rhetoric, giving him an air of legitimacy others do not have (on both sides).

The Webb-Hagel Amendment will be voted on this afternoon as part of the Defense Authorization bill, but due to the fact that the Republicans are filibustering basically every substantive Democratic amendment that could actually have an impact, it will be necessary for Jim Webb (D-VA) to get 60 votes for his proposal.  His amendment, which received 56 votes earlier this summer — four short of overcoming the filibuster — requires that any troops get a stay at home at least equal to the length of their tour of duty in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.  A small change from the amendment this summer, he has added a provision to let the policy start 120 days after enactment in order to let the generals in charge make the necessary planning changes.

Realizing that this could be the one that could get over the 60 vote hump, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has offered a toothless alternative that states it is the “Sense of the Senate” that a month home for every month away policy for troops is the preferable policy, but having absolutely no enforcement mechanism.  This is exactly the type of strategy that the Republicans love to use — have a fake vote that gives them cover, but defeat the substantive policy that actually would accomplish something.

Graham and John McCain (R-AZ) as well as other Republican Senators have argued against the Webb amendment because: 1) It is interfering (“meddling”) with the military leaders ability to make strategic decisions in the field, 2) It is micro-managing a war that is not in the proper role of congress, with McCain even claiming that it is probably an unconstitutional act, and 3) It will lessen the ability of the military to do what it needs to do on the ground to win, and thus put the people who are in the combat theater in greater danger.

Webb countered in a short speech on the floor, stating that a similar situation occurred during the Korean War and that Congress stepped in and demanded appropriate training for U.S. soldiers when military leaders wanted to get them into the field before the usual training had been completed.

While John Warner (R-VA) took to the Senate floor and acknowledged the benefits of the Webb amendment and the positive intent of its author, he stated that he will oppose it due to the fact that his discussions with military leaders have made it clear to him that they couldn’t be able to properly transition to such a policy for about a year, even if ordered, without inhibiting their needs.

This is the amendment that will demonstrate whether there is any real dent in the Republicans’ obstructionist strategy on the floor of the Senate.  The critical element will be whether Webb and Hagel can overcome the knee-jerk war supporters like Graham and be able to gain votes, despite the cover of the worthless amendment that he offers as so-called political cover. This vote will determine the top number of Republicans who can be counted on to assist in a change in direction in Iraq.  If Webb doesn’t get 60 votes, then it is unlikely that any real change will be allowed by the 40 or so Republicans preventing any real change in policy.

The question for those Republicans who vote against the Webb amendment is:  What is more important to you — the President and the war planners, or the troops on the ground?  Are you really supporting the troops if all you do is talk about how great a job they are doing and how we should continue this failed policy? Or would a policy that would at least slightly lessen the burden on their families, their psyches, their finances and their health.  All members acknowledged that the “ideal” situation would be to give every soldier or marine a month home for a month in the war, but for some reason they must continue to be pawns in this fiasco, as politicians who insist that “Victory is the only strategy” and praise the troops that, in the last analysis, are being abused.

I don’t know how they sleep at night — but if they vote against Webb this afternoon, they certainly can’t say they support the troops. 

Congressional Quarterly’s CQ Weekly has a “Reality Check” When it comes to Iraq policy that is good at focusing on the critical elements that are shaping the Iraq debate.  Since CQ Weekly is a subscription service, I have summarized the Five Realities:

1. The Reports coming out this month will change few positions – Members of Congress will see what they want to see in the reports.  Republicans will focus on the progress that the reports explain, while Democrats will point to the shortfalls of U.S. Iraqi operations.
2. Bush still has the upper hand in foreign policy – Bush is still Commander in Chief and he still has the power of the veto.  In the Senate the Republicans are able to filibuster any bills that run counter to the President’s goals.  The Democrats do not want to be viewed as abandoning the troops, so they do not want to take a hard line on spending for Iraq and Defense.  Even if the Democrats work with Republicans to meet the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, a veto by Bush would still be upheld without 67 votes.
3. It’s not just the numbers, it’s the mission – The troop levels will remain the same for the next few months in order to carry out the mission associated with the surge.  Troops will have to begin to be drawn down next spring because the current troop levels are unsustainable if troop deployments are not extended past the current 15 months. The debate next year will be over the number of troops that remain after the next draw down.
4. Maliki may be weak, but a strong central government still matters – The reason given for the surge in the number of U.S. troops was to give the Maliki government the breathing space that they need to complete the necessary political step to stabilize Iraq.  Maliki’s failure in using this time to get the Iraqi parliament to pass critical legislation and to take essential steps in solidifying the government’s role has been one of the biggest failures of the surge.
5. Of all Iraq’s neighbors, Iran is most critical to Iraq’s successful stabilization – If the Maliki government fails, then tribes may turn to other sponsors for money and support.  While Saudi Arabia and Syria would have a role to play, it is the standoff between the U.S. and Iran that is preventing a region-wide conference and potential broad solutions from being debated and implemented.

With the impetus to show that the troop surge is indeed working, it is not surprising that the Defense Department is going to define success to make the tactic look successful.  What is unusual is that they have revised past casualty numbers so as to make current numbers look better.

Shifting Death Counts

Quarterly Defense Department reports released in March and June provided significantly different counts of sectarian killings in the second half of 2006. The discrepancy is one example of how shifting statistics paint pictures of progress in Iraq.

SOURCE: “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,” March and June 2007 | The Washington Post – September 06, 2007

This Washington Post article explains that the claim that sectarian violence is sharply down in Iraq due to the surge is a result of cooking the books.  Looking at the above charts, you can see that by revising December and January totals upward, the numbers that the Pentagon then files for the summer will look better in comparison.  The problem, though, is not just the revision of previous casualty counts, but changing the definition of what is considered a sectarian casualty.  The excellent article by Karen DeYoung, linked above, shows that the Pentagon can “Cherry-pick” numbers to meet the needs of the one who is using them. read the whole article, but this I found worthy of note:

Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military’s statistics. “Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances,” the spokesman said, “we do not track this data to any significant degree.”

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen — recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda — are also excluded from the U.S. military’s calculation of violence levels…

Attacks labeled “sectarian” are among the few statistics the military has consistently published in recent years, although the totals are regularly recalculated. The number of monthly “sectarian murders and incidents” in the last six months of 2006, listed in the Pentagon’s quarterly Iraq report published in June, was substantially higher each month than in the Pentagon’s March report. MNF-I said that “reports from un-reported/not-yet-reported past incidences as well as clarification/corrections on reports already received” are “likely to contribute to changes.”

When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent “since last year,” the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, MNF-I said that “last year” referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

By March, however — before U.S. troop strength was increased under Bush’s strategy — the number had dropped to 600, only slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May “but trending back down in June-July.”

So Patraeus is going to report a 75% drop in sectarian attacks, but is using 1) Revised data (as can be seen inheha above) that make the months before the surge appear to be more violent than in earlier reports, and 2) He is not doing a year-to-year comparison, but is rather comparing attacks to a revised December number that was one of the worst months of the occupation in terms of violence.  When you get to create your own data and your own standards, then it sure is easier to get the results that you want.

This does not make me any more optimistic about the accuracy of General Patraeus’ report to Congress next week.

House Democratic Caucus Leader gets a lot of criticism from progressives for his handling of progressive candidates while Chairman of the DCCC, but he is also a very smart guy and knows how to frame a debate.  After Bush’s comments in Australia praising the Iraq Parliament at the expense of the U.S. Congress, Emanuel sent off this missive to Bush Chief of Staff Josh Bolten:

September 5, 2007

Dear Mr. Bolten:

It has long been the custom that members of Congress do not go overseas and criticize the President—that partisanship ends at the water’s edge. But reading today’s accounts of the President’s remarks in Australia, it is clear he has a different view.

Asked about the lack of political progress in Iraq, the President said Iraq’s Parliament had passed 60 laws, and added, “It’s more than our legislature passed.”

It was a false and gratuitous shot, which ignores the scores of laws we have passed, sometimes over the President’s strong objection, to promote economic fairness for America’s struggling middle class. >From passing a long-awaited increase in the minimum wage to an historic reform of the student loan and grant program so millions more young people can achieve the dream of college, our Congress is offering new hope to the American people. We can debate these accomplishments at another time on another day.

But as a veteran of the political wars, I am not concerned about the slight as much as I am about the President’s spirited defense of the status quo in Iraq.

The truth is, the Iraqi Parliament has made virtually no progress on any of the major issues that must be resolved to end the civil war there. Their most noteworthy agreement was a resolution to adjourn for summer vacation, while our troops toiled in 115 degree heat to try and halt the bloodshed.

It is the same stubborn defiance of the truth that has marked his stewardship of this four and half year war. And the truth is this:

The valiant efforts of our troops cannot and will not substitute for real, determined steps on the part of the Iraqis to resolve the issues at the heart of their civil war.

So I am not asking for an apology. Like most Americans, I am merely asking the President to finally come to grips with the reality of the failures of the Iraqi leadership and the shortcomings of his own Iraqi policy.

We do not need cheap shots or photo ops. We need a change in policy to relieve our troops and put the Iraqis on notice that it’s long past time for them to take responsibility for their own future.

Sincerely,

Rahm Emanuel

Member of Congress

The only changes from the draft report leaked last week is that two items (9 and 12) were changed from “Unsatisfactory” to “Mixed Progress.”  These are: 9. Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations, and 12. Ensuring Iraqi security forces are providing even-handed law enforcement.  GAO Comptroller General, David Walker, explained before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he had determined ahead of time that one benchmark grade should be changed, and the other was changed after new information was provided by  the Pentagon.  Overall the report retains its critical analysis as contained in last week’s draft. 

I just watched a video of Bush speaking from the Anbar province on his surprise visit to Iraq. I am no expert on what is happening on the ground in Iraq, but from what I have been reading there has been tremendous progress in stabilizing this once chaotic region. The points that are made as to the cause of the stability are: 1) Al Qaeda overplayed their hand in the amount of violence they used to gain influence in the region, causing militias and tribal leaders to oppose them, and 2) The U.S. is working with these tribal and militia leaders, who originally opposed the U.S. presence, in pushing out Al Qaeda and brining stability to Anbar.

This is of course a very positive outcome, but it strikes me that the U.S. did this without a real role for the central government of Iraq. Bush in his talk mentioned funds coming to Anbar from the Maliki government, but I would bet this is at the direction of the U.S. So that means that the greatest success of the U.S. occupation is due to working to unelected, factional leaders rather than an elected government. Meanwhile, the elected government that we are supposedly waiting on to accomplish something is basically spending its time defending itself against a barrage of rhetorical attacks. So — is the goal right now stability or having an elected government, whether it is functional or not?

There has been a lot of criticism of Harry Reid (D-NV) since the Washington Post reported about an interview they had with him regarding the upcoming debates over Iraq in Congress — however it seems to me that Reid is just taking an honest view of the legislative reality regarding possible success in Congress. The question for progressives is to ask whether it is more important to stay principled and accept little less than timelines for withdrawal, or should we allow Reid and Pelosi to explore the Art of the Possible.

Reid’s main points in the interview accept the current political environment:

1. The demand for a firm withdrawal deadline was an obstacle to gaining GOP votes for limitations on the war.
2. While he still supports withdrawal as soon as possible, and he has no regrets about his uncompromising strategy in july, in his view, now is the time to work with the Republicans to find possible solutions.
3. To this end, Reid is encouraging”new coalitions to develop” that result in more bipartisan cooperation.

This seems to be a sensible calculation. Even with the expected return of Tim Johnson (D-SD), and adding the four Republicans who supported withdrawal in July, we are talking about 54 votes, which in the Senate just doesn’t get you t the win. At 54 votes the Democrats are 6 short of ending a filibuster and 13 short of overcoming a veto (a barrier which is even harder to overcome in the House).

The Democrats have a choice: They can either insist on the full withdrawal plus timeline/deadline option in an “all or nothing” strategy and thus keep making what, in the end, will be merely symbolic votes; or, they can try to fashion a compromise with moderate and discouraged Republicans that will at least accomplish something.

The goal now should be to achieve the most possible in terms of ending U.S. involvement in Iraq and at least begin to unwind our presence there, and do it with the greatest number of votes possible to put more pressure on the Bush Administration. That will probably mean not focusing on votes for immediate withdrawal or hard timelines. But the reality is that real withdrawal probably will not begin until a Democrat enters the Oval office in January, 2009 — so until then, Reid and Pelosi have to focus on the Art of the Possible.

The basic elements of the possible are already in Harry Reid’s mind. He is going to bring back Jim Webb’s (D-VA) bill that mandates that soldier’s that return home after tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan must have stays at home equal to the length of their deployment. He is working with Ken Salazar (D-CO) to bring up his bill, co-sponsored with Lamar Alexander (R-TN), that would implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, but Reid is trying to get them to add some sort of timeline for at least the beginning of withdrawal. Armed Forces Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) is going to get the Senate to vote on his and Jack Reed’s proposal to begin withdrawal within 120 days. In a compromise they are considering removing the April 30th deadline for the withdrawal’s completion.

The idea is to gain the votes of Republicans who want to show that they don’t support Bush’s policies, but are recalcitrant to opposing him completely. If it is possible to pick up Republicans such as John Warner (R-VA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), Republicans who have expressed concerns about the President’s policies, but who won’t, for whatever reasons. won’t support a full pullout at this time.

However, accepting the Art of the Possible does not mean the Democrats just give in to the Republicans and the White House. The $50 billion that the President is expected to request from Congress for Iraq and Afghanistan is where the Democrats need to draw their line in the sand. The Democrats need to question the rationale for this request, looking into not just the explanation of the need for the funds, but how previous spending for these operations has been used, wasted and abused. There has been enough waste, corruption and unaccounted spending in Iraq, along with what appears to be outright fraud by some contractors (Yes we mean Halliburton) that it could be argued that if previous funds had been spent wisely and as promised, this $50 billion would not be needed right now. Maybe the contractors who have benefitted from the war should fund the next phase of it.

In any case, the $50 billion supplemental spending request by the Bush Administration should be used as the key for the Democrats to get as far as they can in terms of limiting the war and bringing at least some troops back to the U.S. To do this, they may need to compromise with some moderate Republicans in order to gain at least some leverage — but this is just understanding that getting some of what you want is sometimes better than getting nothing and standing on principle alone.

I do have a concept as to how to link Iraq appropriations with limiting U.S. involvement — I call it “Robust Withdrawal” — that I will be explaining in future posts. I hope that thinking outside the box in this debate won’t be considered folding to the White House’s hand.

In his blog Informed Comment, Middle East expert Juan Cole makes some insightful observations about the Iraq Benchmarks and the Debate here in Washington:

I personally find the controversy about Iraq in Washington to be bizarre. Are they really arguing about whether the situation is improving? I mean, you have the Night of the Living Dead over there. People lack potable water, cholera has broken out even in the good areas, a third of people are hungry, a doubling of the internally displaced to at least 1.1 million, and a million pilgrims dispersed just this week by militia infighting in a supposedly safe all-Shiite area. The government has all but collapsed, with even the formerly cooperative sections of the Sunni Arab political class withdrawing in a snit (much less more Sunni Arabs being brought in from the cold). The parliament hasn’t actually passed any legislation to speak of and often cannot get a quorum. Corruption is endemic. The weapons we give the Iraqi army are often sold off to the insurgency. Some of our development aid goes to them, too.

Cole goes on to show that troop deaths have risen and not fallen and that the Bush Administration must think that Americans are “brain dead” if they believe that this can be sold to the Amwerican Public. See his whole entry for a look at his views on the ridiculousness of the debate over benchmarks.

His points also made me think that the Administration, the Congress and the GAO seem to treat all of the 18 benchmarks equally, but there are some that are more imortant than others, such as the level of violence and the provision of basic services. Maybe we need a benchmark ranking to go along with the evaluation.