McCain, Traveling Along a Tightrope

Bush Policy Is A Presence as He Meets With Leaders

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 24, 2008; A06

PARIS -- Standing along the edge of the Gaza Strip and flanked by a hero of the Israeli military, Sen. John McCain last week invoked the tough rhetoric of President Bush, warning of Iranian influence in the Middle East and cautioning against negotiations with terrorists.

A day later, standing outside London's 10 Downing Street, McCain found himself arguing against his president as he eagerly recounted for reporters his lengthy conversation with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown about the need for worldwide action to prevent global warming.

Throughout a week-long trip that took him to more than a dozen meetings with leaders in five countries, McCain walked a fine line on Iraq and other issues as the all-but-certain Republican nominee confronted perhaps the central dilemma of his presidential campaign -- the question of what role Bush and the legacy of the past seven years will play in his campaign for the White House.

At home, the answer may determine how well McCain succeeds in keeping his Republican base happy while also attracting the independents and Democrats he will need to win in November. And, win or lose, it will shape his image abroad, where a debate is already raging over whether a McCain presidency would be a de facto third term for the embattled incumbent.

In every city, foreign leaders and journalists attempted to reconcile what they deemed the two sides to McCain: his bellicose rhetoric on Iran and North Korea -- which is more aggressive than Bush's -- and his desire to heal the rift with Europe's leaders by closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, ending what he regards to be the use of torture by American forces and reducing pollution.

Europeans "see him as a trusted hand, knowledgeable," said Philip Gordon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who has advised Democratic candidate Barack Obama on foreign policy. "But I think they are a bit worried about him."

Gordon said many Europeans were stunned when U.S. voters reelected Bush in 2004 despite the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. "If we now, after all this, elect someone who agrees with the Iraq policy and is perhaps more hawkish on Iran, they will be surprised," he said.

McCain repeatedly insisted last week that his government-funded trip was not a campaign stunt aimed at voters. Rather, he said, it was a fact-finding mission similar to trips abroad taken regularly by members of Congress in both parties.

"I'm here assessing the situation," McCain barked at an Israeli reporter in the border town of Sderot near Gaza, after flying over Israel with Defense Minister Ehud Barak. "It would not be frankly appropriate for me to talk about what I would do as president."

But the trip was by no means exclusively an information-gathering exercise for McCain.

He paused for a fundraiser with about 100 wealthy American expatriates living in London, who gathered at the ancestral home of Princess Diana and dined on duck salad and ice cream flamb¿. (His aides said the campaign reimbursed the government $3,000 for travel because of the political nature of the fundraiser.) McCain also gave numerous interviews to U.S. television network correspondents who followed him across the continent and to local newspapers in each country, which touted exclusives on their front pages. And he was hardly treated like a member of Congress by world leaders now eyeing him as a potential equal.

In Paris, French President Nicolas Sarkozy led McCain into the ¿lys¿e Palace past a throng of cameras, where the pair sipped cappuccino around a large table set with grapes. In Israel, he walked past Chagall stained-glass windows to meet with President Shimon Peres at his ceremonial home. In London, protocol dictated the absence of a red carpet at 10 Downing, but there was a photo op in the White Drawing Room.

McCain's political advisers say those images were a valuable reminder to voters of a key asset. "This trip has shown the world Senator McCain's foreign policy credentials and highlighted the depth of his knowledge on international affairs," Rick Davis, his campaign manager, wrote in a memo to supporters.

But there were missteps as well. By incorrectly saying that Iran was training al-Qaeda insurgents rather than Shiite extremists, McCain sparked days of headlines questioning that depth of knowledge he so often boasts of on the campaign trail.

And at the Western Wall in Israel, overzealous photographers sparked a near-riot with police officers, overshadowing McCain's visit to the holy site.

"Was it a good trip? Yeah, it was good" was how one of McCain's senior advisers summed up the journey as the senator from Arizona headed to London for a few days of downtime with his wife, Cindy. "The impression that came back to the American people was someone who was deeply comfortable there in a way that showed he's ready to be president."

McCain's partners on the trip were his two closest allies in the Senate, Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), who now describes his political affiliation as "independent Democrat," and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). In an interview as he traveled by train between Paris and London, Graham said McCain's long-held position on Iraq demonstrates his independence from Bush. While embracing Bush's "surge" policy in Iraq, McCain has never shied from saying that the administration bungled the planning and preparation for the conflict.

"When he thought it was going badly, he was pushing back against the administration. When he thought the policy was going right, he was right with him," Graham said. "The idea that John is an extension of another politician will fail miserably."

Democrats are already trying to morph McCain into Bush, counting on the president's sagging poll numbers and the unpopular war in Iraq to drag McCain down, especially among independents.

In a biting Internet ad that seems a foreshadowing of attacks to come, the Democratic National Committee mocked McCain as nothing more than a clone of Bush. "Why is this man so happy?" the ad asks, showing a picture of a laughing Bush. "Because he found someone to promise a Third Bush Term."

Democrats also hammered McCain for turning a policy trip into a political one and called on him to reimburse the government for the tens of thousands of dollars it would have cost to charter a plane for the exercise. At a news conference at the ¿lys¿e Palace, one reporter asked whether the trip had been a "taxpayer rip-off."

All three senators became indignant. "I'm proud to have taken this trip," McCain declared. "I'm proud to have built up the relationships I have with the president of France and with other leaders."

Lieberman called McCain's willingness to travel the world "one of his great attributes." And Graham noted that McCain had been to Iraq eight times since the war began. "We know the differences between Iraq this year and Iraq last year. These trips have been unbelievably valuable," he said.

And yet, throughout the week there were telltale signs of the presidential campaign.

At the Western Wall, a gray-haired man in the flowing garb of a rabbi repeatedly stood on a stool and yelled: "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. John McCain, the next president of the United States of America."

And when McCain's motorcade pulled up in front of the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, a lone American tourist yelled out, "Mac is back!"

The sabre-rattling on NAFTA is worrying, but take it as an opportunity

MICHAEL HART AND WILLIAM DYMOND

Globe and Mail Update

March 14, 2008 at 11:39 PM EDT

Thanks to some opportunistic electioneering in Ohio by the two Democratic hopefuls, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Canadian interests – specifically, the North American free-trade agreement (NAFTA) – briefly became an item in the U.S. presidential campaign. While the campaign has moved on, the Canadian chattering classes remain fixated on the apparent threat to NAFTA, with many voices urging the government not to let the Americans bully us into reopening the agreement. As former officials involved in the negotiation first of the Canada-U.S. free-trade Agreement (FTA) and then of NAFTA, we are gratified to see such solicitude for these two treaties. On closer examination, however, there is both more and less to this story.

First the “less.” No, the Clinton-Obama political pandering poses no serious threat to NAFTA. Ohio is a vote-rich and union-rich state, two facts of life that make it almost axiomatic that Democratic politicians would rattle some sabres on trade. Ohio is also part of the U.S. rust belt that is undergoing some serious adjustments to changing economic conditions. Highly paid, unionized manufacturing jobs in that region have been declining since the 1970s. International trade contributes to this trend, though it has also fuelled the growth of high technology, financial services and other sectors in the U.S. Other factors, notably technological change, are more important causes of the rapid economic adjustments. Trade, however, is the politically easiest target. In the case of Ohio, it is not trade inside NAFTA, but trade with China and other low-cost suppliers that is burrowing into its manufacturing base. If anything, NAFTA has helped prolong auto-industry and other manufacturing jobs, by providing a more integrated North American trade and investment environment.

The evolution of the Ohio economy – and that of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and other parts of the rust belt – is too complicated a story to be captured in the images and slogans that make up a political campaign. Politics is about simplifying complex problems and phenomena, and offering attractively packaged solutions. Claims that NAFTA is part of the problem and that it can be renegotiated to create a better balance fall easily from the mouths of candidates fighting for every delegate they can get.

But that prospect is not real, as Austan Goolsbee, Senator Obama's economic adviser, admitted in an unguarded moment to Canada's consul-general in Chicago. It is unreal for any number of reasons. First of all, the FTA/NAFTA regime is now approaching its third decade. Negotiations began in 1986, to respond to problems that had been recognized in the early 1980s. The FTA came into force in 1989, NAFTA in 1994. Both have now been fully implemented; all transitional arrangements have been exhausted. Opening up NAFTA would consequently be tantamount to going back to the 1980s. Too much adjustment and investment have taken place since then, in reliance on the agreement's rules. By targeting NAFTA, the two Democratic candidates are promising a better yesterday.
Brian Gable/The Globe and Mail
Enlarge Image

(Brian Gable/The Globe and Mail)
Related Articles

Recent

* Discussion: NAFTA chatter a chance to make changes

The Globe and Mail

Senators Clinton and Obama insist their real concern has to do with the labour and environmental side agreements. Sen. Clinton seems to have conveniently forgotten that it was her husband and a Democratic Congress who insisted on these side agreements. They are integral parts of NAFTA and form part of the U.S. legislation that has implemented it. The environment pact has worked well, providing a spotlight on potential problems in the enforcement of domestic environmental laws. The labour pact has been less active, not because of its terms, but due to a lack of credible complaints. If the U.S. has serious proposals for updating these agreements, Canada should be prepared to look at them with an open mind.

So much for the less, what about the more? Is there anything Canadians should be worried about? Yes, there is.

IF THINGS GET UGLY

Washington is going through one of its periodic protectionist moods on trade and investment. For all their talk about reaching out more and working with their friends and allies after the Bush administration is gone, Democrats show little interest in enhancing the global role and image of the U.S., when they talk threateningly about unilateral actions on trade. If our neighbours elect a Democratic president, Senate and House on Nov. 4, things could get ugly, as a falling U.S. dollar, the credit crunch and serious troubles in the housing market add to recession anxieties.

The target for much of that ugliness will be China and other low-cost suppliers to the U.S. consumer market. Most Americans do not have much understanding of the role of these suppliers in maintaining U.S. economic activity. Both politicians and the public fail to realize the benefit of Chinese manufacturing goods produced to U.S. design and using U.S. technology. A recent University of California study found that, of an Apple iPod sold in the U.S. for $299, $160 goes to American companies that design, transport and retail iPods. Only $4 stays in China with the firms that assemble the devices.

Canada will not be a direct target of know-nothing economics that believes trade is bad and no trade is good. But we could be sideswiped. Canada needs open global markets for trade and investment. Protectionism directed against any country hurts our economy. To forestall protectionist sentiment in the U.S., Canadians need to take a serious look at the Canada-U.S. relationship and consider areas where there is scope for constructive, co-operative engagement with the next administration. We should do this, whoever is sworn in as president next Jan. 20.

The Canada-U.S. relationship has drifted for more than a decade. It came close to coming off the rails in the Martin years. Dialogue at the most senior levels of government almost ceased, as petulance and prickly self-righteousness became the salient characteristics of Canadian management of the relationship. The Harper government brought maturity and perspective, but it is still difficult to discern to what purpose the Prime Minister wants to put this civility. He urgently needs to fill that gap, and no later than the end of this year. Specifically, he needs to reconnect Canadian policy with Canadian interests. Ministers and officials, now devoting resources to minor trade agreements with minor trading partners – that includes the European Union – need to refocus their energy on matters that count. As it stands, to use a Texan saying, Canadian trade policy is “all hat and no cattle.”

THICKENING BORDER

Ideas and initiatives have always had to come from Canada because Americans do not devote a lot of thought to the Canada-U.S. relationship, and when they do come up with ideas, Canadians are quick to see these as threatening. It will be better for Canadians to begin mapping out what kind of agenda meets the interests of both countries. Finding an answer big enough to interest American politicians and not so big as to frighten Canadian politicians will tax the imagination of officials and others interested in Canadian public policy. In our view, Canadians need to work out a plan to deal with these concerns:

What steps can be taken to achieve a more open and more secure border for cross-border trade and investment? Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, the border has been thickening, to the detriment of trade.

What can we do together to promote our common interests in the security of the Arctic, the sustainable exploitation of Arctic energy supplies, and environmentally responsible navigation through Arctic waters? Russian and other claims in the high Arctic could be problems and need to be contained by well-thought-through efforts to establish a Canadian presence there. U.S. support will be critical.

What kind of legislative and other programs can we pursue in order to ensure long-term North American energy security?

What further steps can be taken to promote cross-border regulatory co-operation? As the two economies have become more integrated, small, incidental regulatory differences are adding to costs and reducing wealth-creating trade and investment opportunities.

What kind of institutional capacity do we need to have in place to facilitate and promote the governance of North American economic and security concerns and to ensure appropriate co-operation at the state/provincial and legislative levels?

What steps can we take to work together in promoting global peace, security and development, particularly in Afghanistan and other troubled states?

What do we need to do together to address global and cross-border environmental issues?

On some of these matters, direct bilateral interests are at stake. On others, we share values and goals that arise from our common humanity. Canadians like to make a difference in world affairs. The U.S. is the one country that has much in common with us and has the capacity and resources to make a major difference. We can be more effective if we work with the Americans, not at cross-purposes.

At one level, the sabre-rattling on NAFTA is worrisome. At another, it is a wakeup call and an opportunity. Let's seize it.

Michael Hart is Simon Reisman professor of trade policy at Carleton University's School of International Affairs. William Dymond is Senior Executive Fellow at Carleton's Centre for Trade Policy and Law. Both are former federal officials.

Senate Committee Seeks Audit of Iraq Oil Money

By JAMES GLANZ

Two senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have requested a full accounting of how Iraq is spending its soaring oil revenue, amid starkly conflicting estimates of how much the country has invested in rebuilding its broken infrastructure and providing basic services to its citizens.

The request, sent Friday to David M. Walker, the top official at the United States Government Accountability Office, estimates that Iraqi oil revenue could skyrocket above $56 billion in 2008, largely because of the rising price of oil.

That enormous influx of cash comes as the United States has been reducing spending on the reconstruction effort. Since the invasion in 2003, the United States has invested close to $50 billion in reconstruction, but the effort has achieved at best mixed results when measured by improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens.

Still, the American military and State Department continue to finance a wide range of relatively small reconstruction projects as well as training and equipment for Iraqi military forces.

Despite the dire need for better health care, more electricity and clean water, a functioning sewage system and other services, the accountability office has previously estimated that Iraq spent only 22 percent of the oil money set aside for reconstruction in 2006. And in January, the office, which is charged with overseeing the Iraqi government’s finances, reported that Iraq had spent a meager 4.4 percent of its 2007 reconstruction budget by August of that year, the most recent figures available at the time.

As a result, the letter from the Armed Services Committee says, “we believe that it has been overwhelmingly U.S. taxpayer money that has funded Iraq reconstruction over the last five years, despite Iraq earning billions of dollars in oil revenue over that time period that have ended up in non-Iraqi banks.”

The letter was signed by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the committee chairman, and Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who is a former chairman. Senator John McCain of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the committee and the presumptive Republican nominee for president, did not sign the letter.

Iraqi officials say they face many obstacles in what might seem to be a straightforward task: spending their plentiful money. Workers are attacked, engineers and contracting experts have fled government ministries, construction companies refuse to take jobs in risky areas and building materials are not available.

And if all of those factors were not daunting enough, the various Iraqi and American government entities involved cannot even agree on how much the notoriously opaque Iraqi bureaucracy has in fact spent on reconstruction.

Last fall, as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, reported to Congress on the state of the war, the Bush administration provided figures that contrasted sharply with those of the accountability office. The administration reported that by July 2007, Iraq had spent 24 percent of the $10 billion in oil revenue set aside for reconstruction that year.

The accountability office disputed those figures, saying they were based in part on projections that proved inaccurate. But in a recent phone interview, a senior Iraqi official gave even more bullish estimates of the expenditures. Citing official Iraqi Finance Ministry figures, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to provide information that had not yet been publicly released, said by the end of last year, Iraq had spent 63 percent of its capital budget, a leap over the previous year that would indicate rapid progress in governmental efficiency.

“It’s totally unacceptable that there’s no decent accounting for their money,” Senator Levin said in a telephone interview Saturday. “But the problem is our money. Why are we spending our money five years later when they have a surplus? That’s just extraordinary.”

In order to resolve some of these discrepancies and track down where the oil money has gone, the letter by Senators Levin and Warner asks the accountability office to answer a series of basic questions.

The senators requested detailed information on the amount of Iraqi oil revenue from 2003 to 2007, how much of that money has gone unspent, and “how much money does the Iraqi government have deposited, in which banks, and in what countries?”

Finally, Senators Levin and Warner ask the question looming over the entire rebuilding effort: “Why has the Iraqi government not spent more of its oil revenue on reconstruction, economic development and providing essential services for the Iraqi people?”

Also on Friday, Iraqi security forces discovered a mass grave containing the remains of about 100 people in Diyala Province, said Maj. Winfield Danielson, a spokesman for Multinational Forces-Iraq.

Obama aides attack Clinton on foreign policy

By Caren Bohan

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would be more of the same failed Republican approach, Barack Obama's campaign said on Thursday, as aides stepped up their attacks after losses in this week's Democratic presidential nominating race.

Clinton, who revived her struggling campaign with victories on Tuesday in closely watched contests in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, has been hammering away at Obama on national security, painting him as too inexperienced to handle a world crisis.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, has used a similar line of criticism against Obama.

Obama aides seized on the simultaneous attacks to accuse the New York senator of choosing to "align herself with Sen. McCain."

"I guess Sen. Clinton believes that the way to beat Sen. McCain in a debate is to talk like he talks, act like he acts, and vote like he votes on national security issue," Obama adviser Greg Craig told reporters on a conference call. "We believe that Democrats in the past have lost national security debates to the Republicans for these reasons."

The defeats for Obama in the hard-fought large states of Ohio and Texas on Tuesday snapped an earlier winning streak. In their aftermath, the Illinois senator expressed frustration with what he said was a "very negative" campaign Clinton had run and he vowed to hit back harder against her criticisms.

Many political analysts think a television commercial that Clinton launched focusing on national security had succeeded in raising doubts about Obama.

The ad featured sleeping children and a phone ringing at the White House as a narrator ominously warns: "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there is a phone in the White House and its ringing. Something is happening in the world."

The narrator then asks whether the person answering the White House phone is "tested" enough to keep America safe.

On the conference call, Craig said Clinton had "aligned herself" with McCain on some specific issues, such as putting too much trust in Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and supporting a legislative amendment aimed at stepping up pressure on Iran.

But the Clinton campaign shot back that such comments distorted the New York senator's record.

"Distorting Hillary's record won't address the doubts voters have about Senator Obama's readiness to be commander-in-chief," said Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

Clinton held a meeting in Washington on Thursday with top military leaders and experts, and said their support showed confidence in her ability to make important national security decisions, including those in which "lives are on the line."

The Obama campaign has derided Clinton's characterization of herself as steeped in foreign policy experience based on her years as first lady and her travels and work as a senator.

Obama adviser Susan Rice said the ability to handle that 3 a.m. crisis phone call is not something that can be acquired "merely by being married to a commander-in-chief."

(Reporting by Caren Bohan, editing by Philip Barbara)

For a Democrat, Options in Iraq Could Be Few

Hopefuls Seen as Unlikely To Effect Rapid Change

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 29, 2007; A01

In their debate Wednesday night in Hanover, N.H., none of the three top Democratic presidential candidates would promise to have the U.S. military out of Iraq by January 2013 -- more than five years from now.

"I think it would be irresponsible" to state that, said Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I cannot make that commitment," added former senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) put it simply when she outlined the dilemma that Democratic presidential aspirants face on Iraq. "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," the party's front-runner said.

After President Bush's announcement this month of a limited troop drawdown and a continuation of the "surge" strategy through next summer, the key question for centrist Democrats in the presidential race is no longer whether U.S. forces will remain in Iraq but what size, mission and length a post-buildup, post-Bush force would take on. Even if the Democratic hopefuls decline to offer specifics, some of the people mentioned as possible defense secretaries under a Democratic White House offer a vision of a U.S. presence in Iraq that does not differ markedly from that of the Bush administration.

"There's a fairly narrow band of choice here, a relatively limited set of options," said David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency expert who has advised Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "I think a Democratic or Republican administration will be doing fairly similar things."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said recently that he hopes to bring the U.S. presence in Iraq down to about 100,000 troops by the end of 2008, eventually falling to a long-term presence of roughly 40,000 to 60,000 troops, whose job would be mainly to back up Iraqi forces.

John J. Hamre, a Clinton-era Pentagon official mentioned as a possible successor to Gates in a Democratic administration, said in an e-mail that when a new president takes over in January 2009, the U.S. mission will include "force protection, overwatch (of Iraqi security operations), continued training/mentoring of Iraqi security forces and direct action operations against known bad guys." There is likely to be some patrolling by U.S. forces in Baghdad," Hamre noted, "but it should be considerably reduced."

At that point, said Richard Danzig, a former Navy secretary also on the Democratic short list for defense secretary, the next president should talk to Iraqi officials about setting a target date for leaving Iraq but make it clear that the date is negotiable, depending on the political progress Iraqis make. Bush has fiercely resisted setting such a timetable. Danzig, an adviser on defense issues for Obama, emphasized that he was speaking for himself.

A third possibility for defense secretary, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a former officer in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, said he agrees with the Democratic candidates that "the reality is that there is a likelihood of an American presence" in Iraq in 2013 but added that he hopes it would be a small, noncombat force. As for the mission under a new administration, Reed said the U.S. military will not have enough troops in Iraq to continue the current effort to protect the population and will have to focus on training, counterterrorism and perhaps border security missions.

Whoever the next president is, said retired Army Col. Robert Killebrew, "the war in Iraq will go on at least for two or three years into the new president's first term."

The first clue to determining how many U.S. troops will be in Iraq in 2009 -- and what they will be doing -- will come in the spring. As the buildup ends and U.S. forces begin to draw down, the United States will assess whether Iraqi forces are able to take over providing security. The U.S. strategy of "clear, hold and build" depends on Iraqi troops and police ultimately being able to "hold." But there has been little evidence so far of their ability to do so in areas that are being contested, analysts note, especially in and around Baghdad.

"Recent U.S. government estimates state that the Iraqi security forces will not be capable of taking on this mission for at least 18 to 24 months," said Nora Bensahel, a security analyst at Rand Corp., "and I think there are reasons to be skeptical about this forecast, since that's the same time frame that U.S. government estimates included in both 2005 and 2006."

The second unknown is whether the U.S. standoff with Iran escalates, or other regional problems emerge that knock the U.S. effort in Iraq off track. "Wild cards that could alter the present trajectory include escalating tensions with Iran and/or Syria, as well as the physical or political meltdown of the Iraqi government in Baghdad," said Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank in London.

Finally, the third factor is the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November 2008, with the vote likely to be shaped in part by how the United States stands in Iraq.

After years of worrying about "mission creep" -- that is, the expansion of its tasks -- the U.S. military will have to adjust to a shrinking mission. The ambitious goals that the Bush administration set forth in 2003 of turning Iraq into a beacon of democracy for the Middle East have been set aside, replaced by the more limited aim of a stable Iraq that does not fall apart, does not engage in a full-blown civil war and does not spill over into a regional strife.

As the force is cut, said Kilcullen, the U.S. mission will have to change to training, advising, supplying and backing up Iraq forces. The hardest part of this transition for U.S. officials will be giving up control of operations, he predicted: Once the United States sets broad parameters, it will have to defer to Iraqi officials on issues such as timetables and nature of the operations to be carried out.

But if the mission is narrowed too much or too fast, then the U.S. position in Iraq could deteriorate rapidly, some military experts argue. In this view, the U.S. military only recently has begun to get the strategy right, by moving troops off big bases and into the population.

If the United States "reduces troop strength" and "withdraws from living with the population," worried retired Army Col. Howard Clark, a veteran policy planner, it would be quite possible to have a full-blown civil war emerge, with Sunnis fighting Shiites and the Kurds combating Turkish forces in the north. This could be followed by Iranian intervention on behalf of the Shiites and Saudi intervention to support the Sunnis. Some possible consequences, he noted, would be spiraling oil prices, destabilization of Pakistan and further problems in Afghanistan.

Even if it goes well, Americans may not be happy with the result, officers who have served in Iraq warned. If the empowerment of local tribes and militias continues, the country may break up. And if it does not, said one Army lieutenant colonel who has served two tours in Iraq, "the most likely outcome is a Shia tyranny of the majority, either with our assistance or despite our opposition."

Ultimately, however, it appears now that no matter who inhabits the White House, the United States may be resolved -- or resigned -- to an enduring presence in Iraq. "America has taken a deep breath," Kilcullen said, "looked into the abyss of pulling out, and decided, 'Let's not do it yet.' "

In GOP, Growing Friction On Iraq

Senate Dissenters Chafe at Tactics Of Party Leaders

By Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 11, 2007; A01

Facing crumbling support for the war among their own members, Senate Republican leaders yesterday sought to block bipartisan efforts to force a change in the American military mission in Iraq.

But the GOP leadership's use of a parliamentary tactic requiring at least 60 votes to pass any war legislation only encouraged the growing number of Republican dissenters to rally and seek new ways to force President Bush's hand. They are weighing a series of proposals that would change the troops' mission from combat to counterterrorism, border protection and the training of Iraqi security forces.

"I think we should continue to ratchet up the pressure -- in addition to our words -- to let the White House know we are very sincere," said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), who broke with the president last month.

The maneuvering in the Senate came as Bush traveled to Voinovich's home state to appeal for more time on the war, and as presidential candidates in Iowa and on the Senate floor escalated their rhetoric in a debate that once seemed headed for culmination in September but now appears to be fully engaged. House leaders announced last night that the chamber will vote tomorrow on legislation to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days, with complete withdrawal by April 1, 2008, unless the president reports to Congress why some troops must remain to fight terrorism or train Iraqi forces.

The president appealed to lawmakers yesterday to hold back on legislative responses at least until September, when Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, will deliver a crucial progress report on the military and political efforts there. And last night the White House formally declared that the president would veto virtually any of the war proposals being considered.

"I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, 'Is it worth it, can we accomplish an objective?' " Bush told a Cleveland business group. "Yes, we can accomplish this fight and win in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you, we must."

On the campaign trail in Iowa, Sens Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) delivered speeches assailing Bush's war policy, while Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) tussled on the Senate floor.

Speaking at the very moment that his campaign was announcing the departure of two top aides, McCain lashed out at antiwar Democrats who are advocating an immediate troop withdrawal, comparing such a move to when the Senate voted to cut off funding for U.S. troops in Cambodia in 1970.

"I've seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said no," said McCain, whose campaign has lost support partly because of his advocacy of the war. He singled out Mike Gravel, a Vietnam War-era senator from Alaska who strongly opposed that mission and is waging a long-shot antiwar candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

Biden jumped in. "Give me a break! Quoting Gravel as the voice of the left?" he exclaimed. "This is a man who, God love him, nominated himself for vice president. I mean, come on!"

Vice President Cheney attended a closed-door Republican luncheon to appeal for party unity in what Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) called "a vigorous debate." Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska) said he took Cheney's side, telling his colleagues: "If we leave prematurely, it would be absolute anarchy. We'd be turning over to al-Qaeda one of the largest oil-producing states in the world."

But such sentiments are increasingly in the minority in the Senate. "June and May were among the bloodiest months of any since we've been there, and what has the Maliki government done? Virtually nothing," Collins said after the lunch, referring to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Beyond the war of words are serious legislative efforts to force change -- despite the 60-vote requirement that Republican leaders are banking on as a barrier.

Collins and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) are seeking bipartisan support for an effort to force U.S. troops out of combat roles, restricting them to fighting terrorism, securing Iraq's borders and training Iraqi forces. The amendment would not require troop withdrawals, but because fewer troops would be needed for the new missions, tens of thousands could probably come home, Collins said.

The Maine moderate, who faces reelection next year in her antiwar state, is part of another bipartisan effort that would make last year's Iraq Study Group recommendations the new policy for Iraq, with a goal of removing combat forces by March 31, 2008.

That amendment was offered yesterday by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), despite the concern of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) that it could shave Republican support from tougher approaches. Salazar's measure would require Bush to develop a comprehensive plan based on the study group's recommendations. But the White House would be free to adjust the timetables for the removal of U.S. combat forces and the transition of the mission to training and counterterrorism.

Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), a respected GOP voice on war policy, and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, are collaborating on an amendment that would meld the bipartisan efforts. Warner said that he will not comment on the initiative until after Bush presents an interim progress report on Iraq, which could come as early as tomorrow. But, according to lawmakers familiar with the deliberations, Warner and Lugar will try to merge some of the Iraq Study Group recommendations, such as a renewed diplomatic push, with forced mission changes similar to those in the Nelson-Collins amendment.

All the measures attracting GOP support are weaker versions of the main Democratic amendments, which tie troop withdrawals to specific dates. But the outcomes could be similar. Even the consensus Democratic amendment could leave tens of thousands of U.S. troops in place.

That proposal, sponsored by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), would begin troop reductions no later than 120 days after enactment. U.S. forces would then shift their efforts to targeted missions such as counterterrorism. The process would have to be completed by April 30, 2008.

The plan "says that America will no longer be the policeman of a civil war," said Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.), the sole GOP co-sponsor of the Levin-Reed measure. "But no terrorists in Iraq can ever sleep peacefully because it does not call for a pullout from Iraq, but a responsible way forward."

Base to Bush: It's Over

By Byron York
Sunday, July 8, 2007; B01

Let's say you're a Republican president, a bit more than midway through your second term. You're scrambling to salvage what you can of a deeply unpopular war, you're facing a line of subpoenas from Democrats in Congress and your poll ratings are in the basement. What do you do?

You estrange the very Republicans whose backing you need the most.

That's precisely what President Bush has managed to accomplish during the two big political developments of recent weeks: the commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence and the defeat of comprehensive immigration reform. But the president's problems with the GOP base go beyond those awkward headlines. Republicans aren't mad at Bush for the same reasons that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the devotees of MoveOn.org are; there's no new anti-Bush consensus among left and right. No, conservatives are unhappy because the president allied himself with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) over an immigration deal that leaned too far toward amnesty for illegal immigrants. They're unhappy because Bush has shown little interest in fiscal responsibility and limited government. And they're unhappy, above all, because he hasn't won the war in Iraq.

All of this has left Republicans saying, at least among themselves, something blunt and devastating: It's over.

"Bush fatigue has set in," declares one plugged-in GOP activist.

"We're ready for a new president," says a former state Republican Party official in the South.

"There was affection," opines a conservative strategist based well beyond the Beltway, "but now they're in divorce court."

The problem is there for anyone to see: Bush's approval ratings could not have collapsed to 30 percent unless a lot of his base deserted him. In a number of recent polls, his job-approval rating among Republicans has been in the low- to mid-60 percent range. "Being under 70 percent of your own party, when you're president, is a pretty weak performance," notes Republican pollster David Winston. "He should be closer to, if not over, 90 percent."

Despite all this, the president has behaved in recent weeks like a man with political capital to burn. On immigration reform, he defied the GOP base as if his well of support were so deep that he could draw out as much of it as he liked. He also gave himself the worst of all worlds in the case of Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. By commuting Libby's prison sentence -- as opposed to pardoning him outright -- for perjuring himself to CIA leak investigators, Bush outraged his Democratic opposition while leaving his base vaguely disappointed.

The president knew that Libby's most ardent partisans -- including the most powerful vice president in U.S. history -- opposed his spending even one night in jail. But for the base writ large, the case wasn't about Libby. It was about the politics of the Iraq war. A lot of conservatives had hoped for a full pardon because they wanted a strong White House statement that the CIA leak investigation had spun out of control, that it had grown from a set of crazy political circumstances and that the whole mad imbroglio should never have gotten as far as it did.

In short, they wanted something like the impassioned statement President George H.W. Bush issued in December 1992, when he pardoned former defense secretary Caspar W. Weinberger, former national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane, former assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams and three other participants in the Iran-contra affair. (Abrams, by the way, is now a deputy national security adviser.) Back then, Bush said that patriotism was the "common denominator of their motivation." The president used the pardons as an opportunity to denounce what he called "a profoundly troubling development in the political and legal climate of our country: the criminalization of policy differences."

In the Libby case, there were no ringing declarations. Instead, this President Bush came up with a cramped, limited statement, commuting Libby's jail term while keeping (at least for now) his conviction, a $250,000 fine that he has already paid and two years of probation. One didn't have to read too far between the lines to guess that the president believes Libby to be guilty of perjury; just for good measure, Bush threw in some good words for Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. The problem, the president said, wasn't that Fitzgerald had gone on a three-year fishing expedition that netted only Libby, or that the Iraq war's foes were using the CIA leak case to rehash their grievances against the original decision to invade; rather, the problem was simply that U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton's sentence was "excessive."

For many conservatives, it was exactly the wrong way to approach the problem.

"We specifically don't want an executive to re-try a case and decide he knows better than the judge or jury," says Vin Weber, a sometime White House adviser. "We want the executive to take a broader national interest into account -- something that needs to be taken into account that a judge or jury couldn't properly take into account."

In other words, if Bush had pardoned Libby because the CIA leak probe never should have happened, fine. But don't play judge, Mr. President -- that's not your branch.

So the commutation won no more than tepid approval from the base. And it certainly didn't offset the terrible damage the president did to himself during the immigration debate by backing a bill that would have put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. Many conservatives are still hopping mad over the president's description of the bill's opponents as people who "don't want to do what's right for America." Things got so bad that a top White House aide recently tried to reassure a group of conservative journalists that the president isn't out of touch. "He gets it," the aide said. "He gets it." But he didn't get it enough to avoid a major defeat -- one that probably sounded the official death knell to Bush's attempts to turn his brand of compassionate conservatism into law.

So now the president has 18 months left in office, and they won't be quiet ones. Absent the committed backing of his party, he will be forced to exercise power based not on his political clout but rather on the authority the Constitution gives the office of the president: He is commander in chief. He can veto bills. He can issue pardons. And that's about it.

The deterioration of the base will be particularly critical when it comes to the Iraq war. September will bring the most important moment of the president's second term, when Gen. David H. Petraeus is set to report to Congress on progress in Iraq, thereby starting an intense and protracted debate over funding and withdrawal timetables. If Bush cannot convince conservatives who are already unhappy with him about domestic issues that his Iraq plan is working, he'll see Republicans in Congress -- and on the presidential campaign trail -- peel away. That would put him in danger of losing control of the war.

But the danger is even greater than that. In a June 25 speech that was widely interpreted as a warning shot at the White House, Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, one of the most respected Republican voices on foreign affairs, did more than urge the president to adopt a new policy toward Iraq. He also outlined a dire scenario in which a lame-duck president, a failing Iraq policy and an intensely political atmosphere might come together to mean that nobody will control the war. "A course change should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq," he said. "Little nuance or bipartisanship will be possible if the Iraq debate plays out during a contentious national election that will determine control of the White House and Congress." And the president's position wasn't helped when Sen. Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, another old-guard Republican, expressed a similar view last week.

On the domestic front, the president almost certainly won't be able to get much of anything done. But he will be able to stop Democratic initiatives. And all signs indicate that he will use his veto pen to become, from the GOP base's perspective, a better-late-than-never convert to the cause of fiscal responsibility after six years of reckless deficit spending. "That's probably where he'll have the most impact," says Winston, the GOP pollster. "Appropriations bills are coming through, and he'll have his shots at them."

If Bush is energetic with his vetoes, he might see a bit more enthusiasm from the base. It's always good to have an enemy, after all. "These days, the only time he gets support is when Democrats attack him," says one Washington-based GOP strategist. But that will take him only so far. George W. Bush's time to get big things done has passed. Even his most ardent fans, the ones who wish him the best, are looking forward to Jan. 20, 2009.

byork@nationalreview.com

Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent and the author of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy."

Senate Floor To Be a Stage For '08 Race

Antiwar Candidates Seeking the Spotlight

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 7, 2007; A01

The four Senate Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination will take their campaigns to the chamber's floor next week, pushing new limits on U.S. involvement in Iraq in an attempt to burnish their antiwar credentials.

Next week, the Senate turns to the annual Defense Department authorization bill, legislation that is becoming a magnet for Iraq-related amendments as Democrats press ahead in their quest to force President Bush to change course and begin withdrawing U.S. troops. Among those hoping to reshape the bill are a who's who of the 2008 field -- Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.).

For months, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) discouraged his caucus's 2008 candidates from taking prominent roles on Iraq, in hopes of inoculating his party from charges of politicizing the war.

But Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Democratic leader has given up on that proposition, a decision that was probably inevitable as the party's base pushes aggressively for immediate withdrawal. Reid has assured all antiwar Democrats drafting Iraq amendments that they will get a vote during the defense policy debate -- a pledge that amounts to free airtime for the four presidential candidates.

Clinton, teaming up with Sen. Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), is lobbying other senators to support a measure that would essentially revoke the authority Congress gave Bush in 2002 to wage the war. Obama is drafting amendments to improve mental health services for veterans and to beef up oversight of military contractors. Dodd's amendment would begin troop withdrawals within a month and terminate funding for combat operations next spring.

Biden will seek additional support for mine-resistant vehicles and will pitch in to help Democratic leaders build consensus on troop-withdrawal language -- an effort likely to become the debate's focal point.

The tit-for-tat between the Democratic presidential candidates flared up during the Iraq funding debate in May, when the four senators sought to outdo one another in their opposition to the war. Clinton and Obama, both of whom had previously resisted firm withdrawal deadlines, wound up embracing a cutoff of funding for the war next year, the toughest, most controversial proposal to reach the floor.

In that last major floor debate on the issue, Democrats were handed a substantial setback in their drive to curtail the president's ability to wage the war on his terms: They failed to override a veto of an emergency war spending bill, eventually sending it back to Bush's desk with few restrictions.

Clinton's deauthorization plan has raised a few eyebrows. The idea was considered by Democratic leaders early in the spring, after Biden and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) floated it, but it was set aside as too contentious. Yet for Clinton, whose support for the 2002 authorization remains a point of criticism for many Democratic primary voters, the proposal is tantamount to a legislative reversal.

"It is time for the President to make the case to the Congress and the American people for the U.S. military's changed mission in Iraq," Clinton and Byrd said in a letter to Democratic senators. "The American public and our troops in the field are entitled to a new debate about this war."

The Senate has traditionally been a stumbling block for presidential ambitions. But with Iraq on the table, it is providing a prime opportunity for Democrats to showcase their leadership skills and foreign-policy views.

"The war has been absolutely huge for them," said Barry C. Burden, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and the author of a 2002 study that mapped the miserable track record of U.S. senators as presidential candidates.

Only two sitting senators, Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy, have succeeded as presidential candidates. One who came up short, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), said the landscape now appears radically different from when he launched his 2004 campaign, shortly after the Iraq invasion.

The Democratic nominee's infamous line about war spending -- "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" -- typified the Senate curse. But Kerry said because voters today are far more skeptical about the war, they now understand the distinctions.

"We're five years into the war, and the strategy has failed. And it's failed deep into the consciousness of the American people," Kerry said. "There's not the kind of confusion there was in 2004."

It might appear that former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) would benefit from giving up his seat in 2002, given the historical odds -- 13 former senators have won the presidency since 1789. But the last entry on Edwards's official Iraq record was his 2002 vote for authorization. He is now a strong critic of the war and has apologized to primary voters at every turn, but he can play no direct role in changing U.S. policy.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) is spending as little time as possible on Capitol Hill as he tries to revive his struggling campaign. A staunch Bush ally, McCain is on the wrong side of public opinion on Iraq, and every Senate vote on the war reinforces that. But as the highest-ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, McCain must spend part of July in Washington seated on the Senate floor, managing the defense bill.

"John McCain is a case study this year on the difficulty of running from the Senate," said former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who decided against a presidential bid in 2000, having learned from former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) that it is almost impossible to juggle both jobs.

"I did once before," shrugged McCain, referring to wearing two political hats. "It's fine."

Senate newcomer Obama has participated prominently in the Iraq debate as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. The withdrawal timetable that the president vetoed tracked closely with a proposal Obama outlined in the Senate in January. He also was an early proponent of establishing benchmarks for the Iraqi government, an idea that Republicans and the White House also embraced.

"Obama's been against the war from the beginning, and being in the Senate offers him an opportunity to fight to end it," said his spokesman Bill Burton.

Dodd and Biden have found the Senate to be a useful -- and free -- forum for drawing attention to their long-shot campaigns. Dodd ran ads in Iowa urging his 2008 rivals to vote with him to cut off war funding and renamed the bill "Feingold-Reid-Dodd" on his news releases, joining original sponsors Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Reid, the Senate leader.

Biden, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said his Senate perch "allows me to have instant credibility" on Iraq. "If I had been the best governor ever, it still isn't the same," he said.

"On an awful lot of issues, the case can be made that governors accomplish things, while members of Congress spend their time debating and voting," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic political consultant who is advising Dodd and who served as Kerry's campaign manager in 2003. "The war has changed all that."

The downsides for Senate presidential candidates still exist. The Democratic-led Congress, after all, is almost as unpopular as Bush.

"It's a rare situation, because you don't normally have an Iraq," Daschle said. "For Democrats, to a certain extent, it will be important that we show we can govern. The country's perception of these candidates will be affected, in part, by its perception of the Senate as a whole."