the Dems’ antiwar strategy
House Democrats’ New Strategy: Force Slow End to War By: John Bresnahan February 14, 2007 01:06 PM EST
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have
decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to
U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed
strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.
Led by Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., and supported by several well-
funded anti-war groups, the coalition’s goal is to limit or sharply
reduce the number of U.S. troops available for the Iraq conflict,
rather than to openly cut off funding for the war itself.
The legislative strategy will be supplemented by a multimillion-
dollar TV ad campaign designed to pressure vulnerable GOP incumbents
into breaking with President Bush and forcing the administration to
admit that the war is politically unsustainable.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the
biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the
accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That
fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush,
even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have
plunged.
Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., have decided that
they must take the lead in pressuring not only Republicans but also
cautious Senate Democrats to take steps more aggressive than
nonbinding resolutions in challenging the Bush administration.
The House strategy is being crafted quietly, even as the chamber is
immersed this week in an emotional, albeit mostly symbolic, debate
over a resolution expressing opposition to Bush’s plan to “surge”
21,500 more troops into Iraq.
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an
upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and
Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq
unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and
training to succeed in combat. That’s a standard Murtha believes few
of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.
In addition, Murtha, acting with the backing of the House Democratic
leadership, will seek to limit the time and number of deployments by
soldiers, Marines and National Guard units to Iraq, making it tougher
for Pentagon officials to find the troops to replace units that are
scheduled to rotate out of the country. Additional funding
restrictions are also being considered by Murtha, such as prohibiting
the creation of U.S. military bases inside Iraq, dismantling the
notorious Abu Ghraib prison and closing the American detention
facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“There’s a D-Day coming in here, and it’s going to start with the
supplemental and finish with the ‘08 [defense] budget,” said Rep.
Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, who chairs the Air and Land Forces
subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.
Pelosi and other top Democrats are not yet prepared for an open
battle with the White House over ending funding for the war, and they
are wary of Republican claims that Democratic leaders would endanger
the welfare of U.S. troops. The new approach of first reducing the
number of troops available for the conflict, while maintaining
funding levels for units already in the field, gives political cover
to conservative House Democrats who are nervous about appearing “anti-
military” while also mollifying the anti-war left, which has long
been agitating for Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-
Nev., to be more aggressive.
“What we have staked out is a campaign to stop the war without
cutting off funding” for the troops, said Tom Mazzie of Americans
Against Escalation of the War in Iraq. “We call it the ‘readiness
strategy.’”
Murtha’s proposal, which has been kept under tight wraps, is likely
to pass the House next month or in early April as part of the
supplemental spending bill, Democratic insiders said, if the language
remains tightly focused and does not threaten funding levels for
combat forces already in the field. The battle will then shift to the
Senate. Anti-war groups like Mazzie’s are prepared to spend at least
$6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a
grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents like Sens.
Norm Coleman of Minnestoa, Susan Collins of Maine, Gordon Smith of
Oregon and John Sununu of New Hampshire will be targeted by the anti-
war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-
Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition.
Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general
election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support
proposals to end the war, a direct challenge to conservative
incumbents who are attempting to straddle the political line between
their pro- and anti-war constituents.
If the Senate does not approve these new funding restrictions, or if
Senate Republicans filibuster the supplemental bill, Pelosi and the
House Democratic leadership would then be able to ratchet up the
political pressure on the White House to accede to their demands by
“slow-walking” the supplemental bill. Additionally, House Democrats
could try to insert the Murtha provisions into the fiscal 2008
defense authorization and spending bills, which are scheduled to come
to the floor later in the year.
“We will set benchmarks for readiness,” said a top Democratic
leadership aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. If enacted,
these provisions would have the effect of limiting the number of
troops available for the Bush surge plan, while blunting the GOP
charge that Democrats are cutting funding for the troops. “We are not
cutting funding for any [unit] in Iraq,” said the aide, who admitted
the Democratic maneuver would not prevent the president from sending
some additional forces to Baghdad. “We want to limit the number who
can go … We’re trying to build a case that the president needs to
change course.”
Mazzie, though, suggested that Democrats ought to directly rebut the
Republican charge that Democrats are threatening the safety of
American forces in the field by pushing restrictions on war funding.
“Cutting off funding as described by the media and White House is a
caricature,” Mazzie said. “It has never happened in U.S. history, and
it won’t happen now.”
Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative
strategy, acknowledged “there is a relationship” with the House
Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, “It is
important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the
Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We’re not hand in glove.”
Andrews’s group has launched a new Web site, MoveCongress.org, and he
has already posted an interview with Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., one
of the founders of the “Out of Iraq Caucus” in the House. An
interview with Murtha on his legislative strategy will be posted on
the site Thursday.
“I don’t know how you vote against Murtha,” said Andrews. “It’s kind
of an ingenious thing.”