Two competing Iraq roadmaps

Benjamin Grove

Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2005 | 8:26 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate as early as today could consider dueling resolutions -- one Democrat, one Republican -- aimed at seeking more accountability from the Bush administration on Iraq.

On one level, it is a battle over roadmaps out of an increasingly unpopular war. But it is also about politics.

The resolutions likely will be considered as nonbinding amendments to a broader Defense Department bill, but they amount to thrown elbows as both parties jockey for position on what could be the top issue in the 2006 elections -- Iraq.

"Staying the course is no longer an option," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Democrats say the Republicans mostly copied the language of their resolution, with several key differences. While the Democrats' resolution states that the U.S. military should not remain in Iraq "indefinitely," the GOP version says forces should not stay "any longer than required."

Both resolutions require the White House to issue unclassified reports every three months. The reports would include updates on the military status of the war, Iraqi troop and police training, the delivery of basic services and the strength of Iraqi government ministries.

Democrats also are seeking estimated dates for the phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

With the introduction of the resolutions, Democrats are effectively intensifying their attack on the White House, while Republicans appear to be distancing themselves from it.

"The general feeling in Washington is that Iraq has all the elements of a political crisis for the administration," said George Washington University law professor George Turley. "It has a perfect storm of political and legal issues."

Reid on Monday stepped to the lectern at a Capitol Hill press conference, with five U.S. flags neatly arranged as a backdrop. He and two of his top lieutenants, Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., hammered away at a new message: 2006 will not be just another year of war in Iraq.

The resolutions state that "calender year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty ... thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

"It's time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government," Reid said.

Of course, 2006 is also an election year when Democrats hope to narrow GOP advantages in the House and Senate.

"Politically, it gives them a hook for their Iraq-attack in the mid-year election campaign: 'We wanted an announcement for troop withdrawals by now, and the administration refused to deliver,' " said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "It's one of the best issues Democrats have. It is at the base of American discontent."

Republicans may continue to argue that it is reckless to set any timetable for withdrawal, which thus far has been viewed as sound reasoning, Sabato said.

But he added: "People probably do want that (time lines), even if it is foolish."

The Democrats, as the party out of power, have the advantage in any debate about Iraq, said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, author of The Rothenberg Political Report.

"When you talk about Iraq, all that matters is the news: How many casualties, how many fatalities, is there any progress?" Rothenberg said.

Democrats have successfully painted the war as a bungled mess in the minds of voters, he said.

"They have done a good job of selling that argument," he said. "Whether it is true or not doesn't matter (politically)."

The only way Republicans can get a footing in the Iraq debate is for the situation to actually improve there, he said.

"He (Bush) can't do it with a speech," Rothenberg said.

There always is a period before an election year in Washington when both parties evaluate which issues they plan to hit hardest during the campaign, Turley said.

For Republicans, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the White House for not having a better plan in Iraq, but also for not having a strategy to deal with the political controversies surrounding it, Turley said.

But Democratic senators do not have the moral high ground, he said. Turley noted that before the war, many critics of the conflict told senators that intelligence was spotty.

"These senators did not want to hear it," Turley said. "No one wanted to be on the wrong side of a popular war."

Clearly, Iraq will dominate debates in the 2006 races as the public is barraged daily with images and news from Iraq, Turley said.

"This is not an issue that fades with the attention span of the average voter," Turley said.

Benjamin Grove can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at grove@ lasvegassun.com.

archive