Candidates split over Iraq policy

Michael J. Mishak

Monday, Sept. 4, 2006 | 7:43 a.m.

Mirroring the national political debate over Iraq, Nevada's congressional candidates largely break along party lines on the war, with Republicans supporting Bush administration policies that Democrats castigate as seriously flawed.

"Stay the course is not a military strategy," said Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley. "It's a campaign slogan."

On the other side, Secretary of State Dean Heller, the Republican nominee in another congressional race, says, "I agree with the president on this."

"If we withdraw our troops or set a timetable, it plays into the hands of those that want to harm this country," Heller said. "Terrorists can wait it out."

As in many of this fall's elections nationwide, Iraq is likely to be a pivotal issue in the U.S. Senate race and three House contests to be decided in Nevada on Nov. 7.

Despite rising sectarian violence in Iraq and plummeting public confidence in America's role there, President Bush made it clear last week that Republicans would again embrace national security as the centerpiece of this year's midterm elections.

That leaves most Republican congressional candidates in the uncomfortable position of having to defend an increasingly unpopular war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American men and women in uniform - in a country that, in the eyes of many experts, seems to be slipping into civil war.

While on the surface the war appears to make an easy target for Democrats, the political realities are not that simple. Because even as many Democrats push for a redeployment of U.S. troops, as opposed to an outright withdrawal and immediate return home, they have to be mindful of the "cut-and-run" criticism lodged against some war critics.

Nine weeks before voters head to the polls for elections in which Republicans' control of Congress is in jeopardy, public opinion surveys show the American public exhausted by the war effort.

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 51 percent of those surveyed saw no link between the war in Iraq and the broader anti-terror effort. Fifty-three percent of those polled said going to war was a mistake, and 62 percent said they believe events in Iraq are going "somewhat or very badly."

Here is a race-by-race look at how the Iraq issue is playing out among the major candidates in Nevada's congressional campaigns:

Senate

Democratic nominee Jack Carter, son of former President Jimmy Carter, says the Iraq war has not only cost the United States money and lives, but lowered its standing in the world and allowed terrorism to flourish.

"I think Iraq is the most visible example of the administration's failed policies," he said. "It took our eye off the ball, which was al-Qaida. Instead of extinguishing that terrorist organization, we put all of our chips into Iraq."

Carter said U.S. forces should now lean on the fledgling Iraqi government by setting a timetable for troop redeployment. Under Carter's preferred scenario, American troops would begin to withdraw to a "more defensible position" in the region within three to four months as part of a "quick-response" program that could respond to local flare-ups, he said. Further aid - economic and military - would be contingent on the stability of the Iraqi government.

Carter's opponent, Republican incumbent John Ensign, an ardent supporter of the war, declined to be interviewed for this story, instead issuing a statement that echoed language used by Bush and his surrogates in speeches last week.

"The situation in Iraq is difficult, but we need to remember that this battle is the frontline in our fight against radical Islamic extremists," Ensign's statement said.

"If we leave now without finishing the job, we will only embolden our enemy and invite another attack on our homeland. The security of our country should not be decided by political winds, but instead by keeping the safety of Americans as our top priority."

In recent months, Ensign has said he opposes a timetable for withdrawing troops and firmly stands behind his 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.

1st Congressional District

As a member of the House International Relations Committee, Democrat Berkley said she was convinced of the need to use force in Iraq in 2002. But the administration's case for war - specifically its claims about Iraq's military and weapons capabilities - soon proved to be false, she said.

Over the past three years, the war has been a "deadly diversion" from the global war on terrorism, she said. As a result, the Middle East has become less stable and strengthened the hand of Iran, Berkley added.

Months ago, Berkley began calling for the ouster of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"I'm a hawk," she said. "I recognize the threat out there, but I don't see how what we're doing in Iraq is going to eliminate that threat."

Breaking with prominent Democrats, Berkley opposes the idea of setting a timetable for troop withdrawal. The best way to correct the nation's course in Iraq, she argues, would be for voters to elect Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate this fall.

Republican challenger Kenneth Wegner, a businessman and Army veteran who served in the first Persian Gulf war, said while he did not support the initial invasion of Iraq, he now is committed to the formation of a stable Iraqi government.

Still, he concedes being hard pressed to identify the administration's plan for victory. "The president needs to have a clear policy," he said.

Citing his own military experience, Wegner said progress has stalled because troops have their hands tied by the rules of engagement. Also, securing a porous border with nations such as Iran has proved difficult, he said.

"Our body counts are getting higher and higher, and we don't seem to be getting any results from them," Wegner said. "We have to let our soldiers do their jobs and let them win."

2nd Congressional District

GOP nominee Heller said he supports the administration's current war policy. But he said he also identifies with those calling on the administration for a more defined plan and an exit strategy.

"I can understand the confusion and frustration the American people have," he said. "I'm trying to do this for a living, and I still can't get the answers."

Heller also links the war in Iraq with the larger effort to tackle global terrorism, and said he disagreed with the New York Times/CBS poll that showed a majority of Americans make a distinction between the two. "It's not that they don't believe it," he said. "It's that they don't understand it."

Democrat Jill Derby also opposes setting a timetable for U.S. troops' withdrawal, instead favoring the establishment of "benchmarks" so Americans "know what success looks like."

"Staying the course doesn't work," Derby said. "The course has failed."

Although she believes the war has not made America safer, she said the United States has an obligation to stabilize Iraq, if only to secure America's strategic interests in the region. The first step, she said, would be to place pressure on the Iraqi government to redraft its constitution, with an eye toward "fairer power sharing" among the country's ethnic groups.

"The group outside the tent is the one lobbing grenades," Derby said.

3rd Congressional District

Rep. Jon Porter, the district's two-term Republican incumbent, clearly connects the war in Iraq with the larger war on terrorism. "We have been attacked," he said, referring to 9/11. "And we need to continue the fight in the deserts."

Porter criticized Democrats for what he called their "pick up and leave" strategy, saying that withdrawing U.S. troops now would plunge Iraq into an all-out civil war.

"I really wish it were as simple as setting a timetable," Porter said. "But that would tell your enemy what your plan is. It just doesn't work in a war."

Asked about signs of progress in Iraq, Porter - citing his two trips there - pointed to rebuilt schools, child-immunization efforts and the establishment of a cellular network. "My information doesn't come from the nightly news," he said. "I hear it from the troops. They tell me it's improving."

Still, the picture that Porter paints - one in which American helicopters are greeted by Iraqis as a "sign of freedom and opportunity" - has changed dramatically since his first visit in June 2004, and even since his trip last January, as part of a congressional delegation that toured the Middle East region.

Spreading violence killed more than 100 Iraqis per day in June and July, according to Iraqi government figures.

Tessa Hafen, Porter's Democratic challenger, has called for Rumsfeld's ouster and supports a timetable for redeploying American troops.

Withdrawing troops from troubled areas like Baghdad would send a "serious signal" to Iraqi politicians, many of whom have ties to militias.

"They need to get their political house in order," Hafen said. "We need to start showing them Americans aren't going to be there forever." The redeployment would occur over the next 12 to 18 months, she said, allowing some troops to return home.

Throughout the campaign, Hafen has gone to lengths to tie Porter to Bush, characterizing him as an administration "yes man." On Iraq, she said, Porter is "part of the problem" because he has voted in lock step with the Republican agenda. Congress, she said, has failed in its oversight duties, especially in pressing the administration on an exit strategy.

"They're not even trying to put forth any sort of plan," she said. "I guess on his last day in office Bush is going to cut and run and leave it to someone else to fix."

archive