Reid and the war

Lisa Mascaro, Sun Washington Bureau

Saturday, April 21, 2007 | 7:08 a.m.

Washington

Last summer Nevada Sen. Harry Reid declined to join a dozen maverick senators in voting to bring the troops home from Iraq by this summer.

Their effort failed miserably. Reid, whose party was still in the minority, encouraged Democrats to tackle the war with more modest talk of phased troop withdrawals and a campaign slogan calling for a new direction.

No more. As the months passed, as thousands more American and Iraqi lives were lost and public opinion polls showed the country turning against the war, Reid took increasingly stronger positions. That evolution culminated Thursday with a statement that stunned lawmakers in both parties. The majority leader of the Senate said the war has been lost.

The comment drew criticism from Republicans for its potential damage to troop morale. Some Democrats quietly agreed.

Republicans also said Reid's statement pulled back a curtain to reveal that Democrats lack an inner compass and are trying to use the war for political advantage.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said last week that Reid's positions on Iraq are "all over the map."

Republican activist Chuck Muth in Nevada said "even Republicans who are going soft on the war still see Sen. Reid is playing politics. I don't think he has a firm policy position on this. Sen. Reid is just getting pulled in all those different directions."

As the criticism cascaded into Friday, Reid took to the Senate floor to explain that his remarks must be taken in context: He believes that a military-only solution is certain to fail. But he stood by his statement, which is part of a Democratic strategy of stepping up pressure by speaking boldly about the war.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said recently that Reid has been doing what a leader is expected to do - staking out the next position and taking his party to it.

"He's evolved as the American people have evolved," Daschle told the Sun. "One of the responsibilities of a good leader is to be out in front, to create a willingness to follow. That's what Harry's doing - demonstrating real leadership by getting ahead."

By declaring that the war is lost, Reid also appeals to activists on the left wing of his party who accuse Democrats of failing the country by agreeing to go to war and then not holding the Bush administration accountable after Iraq went sour. Those activists are vital to the Democrats' hopes in the 2008 congressional and presidential campaigns.

Reid says his position on the war has evolved, shaped by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq and his belief that he must use his clout to help end the conflict.

In explaining why he favors cutting off combat funds for troops next March, he said he wants his position to be perfectly clear.

"Why shouldn't I be out there saying get these young men and women out of there as quickly as possible?" he said. "I stake that out with the idea in mind that I want everyone to know how I feel about this war, which has caused American troops to be killed in a civil war, where the prime minister of Iraq doesn't want us in Baghdad, where Sadr, the big-shot militia leader, doesn't want us there."

Reid says he doesn't read opinion polls. But it's hard to ignore the shift in public opinion that now puts American voters in alignment with congressional Democrats.

A Washington Post poll out this week said Americans believe the Democratic-led Congress is more capable than President Bush of resolving the situation in Iraq. A CBS poll showed that a majority of the country favors troop withdrawal deadlines, which Congress is pursing in a standoff with Bush.

Political scientist Barbara Sinclair, who studies Congress at UCLA, said the Vietnam War demonstrated how congressional moods can shift when a protracted, unpopular battle is being beamed into American homes. But she said "it's always a little dicey when the leader goes out on his own on something that is not supported in his own caucus."

The alternative also carries risk, she said, because voters gave Democrats a majority in Congress last year so they would make changes. "You can be too cautious, and I think that can be a danger, too. Then you get people saying why did we bother" to elect Democrats?

Reid voted for the war in 2002 and stands by his decision because it was based on the intelligence available at the time. As the insurgency erupted and evolved into a largely civil war, and as the prewar intelligence was revealed as faulty, Reid's thoughts changed. He said he watched as the administration failed to adjust to realities in Iraq.

"It's been a gradual thing. The final issue for me was when I went to Walter Reed," he said about a trip he made to the Washington military hospital last month.

"Head injuries, boy that was tough for me, these young men and women who will be wards of the state for all the rest of their lives. That really was hard for me, to accept that I wasn't going to try to change that.

"I could see these young men and women being my children or neighbors' children, or think that I was going to let this continue to go on without doing something about it, I couldn't."

Claremont College professor Jack Pitney said Reid's strategy of vocal opposition may well serve his party as long as he can continue to "oppose the war and not stop it."

Democratic legislation approved by the House and Senate set specific dates in 2008 for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Bush has said he will veto the bills and neither chamber has enough votes to override.

Pitney notes that if by some chance the Democrats were to prevail, however, they might not like the outcome.

"At that point, Congress takes ownership of what happens next," Pitney says. "Politically, I don't think anyone wants ownership of Iraq."

archive