Do These 12 Republicans Want At Least 10 More Years In Iraq?

Today's New York Times bottom-lines the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker:

"[They] conceded Tuesday that the Bush administration's overall strategy in Iraq would remain largely unchanged after the temporary increase in American forces is over next summer, and made clear their view that the United States would need a major troop presence in Iraq for years to come."

This is no surprise. Petraeus' team has consistently said -- in February, June, July and August -- that the "average" counterinsurgency effort takes about 10 years, clearly indicating that's his expectation for his current mission.

(And that doesn't even address the fundamentally destabilizing permanent military bases the Bush administration has said it plans to maintain in Iraq.)

By my count, there are 11 Senate Republicans who have tried to appear critical of Bush's occupation -- in addition to the four GOP senators who did not filibuster the last Democratic attempt to mandate a real troop redeployment.

Seven more GOP senators are needed to ensure an up-or-down vote on such a plan, despite the fact that it already has majority support in Congress and among the public.

Those 11 are: Alexander (Tenn.), Coleman (Minn.), Domenici (N.M.), Lugar (Ind.), McConnell (Ky.), Murkowski (Alaska), Sessions (Ala.), Specter (Penn.), Sununu (N.H.), Warner (Va.) and Voinovich (Ohio).

A 12th, Sen. Elizabeth Dole (N.C), inched away from Bush yesterday, according to the Washington Post: "Even ... Dole ... a mainstream conservative who has never publicly strayed from the administration's position on Iraq, made it clear that she would now support 'what some have called action-forcing measures.'"

But none of them appear primed to substantively break from Bush and vote with Democrats on a real withdrawal, only to support a toothless compromise bill and perpetuate the fiction that they are war critics.

As the NYT reports: "some key Republicans said Tuesday that they would still pursue a shift of mission [but] they appeared unlikely to join Democrats in trying to set a fixed deadline for withdrawal."

And Senate Minority Leader McConnell expressed support for Alexander's "compromise" bill because, according to CQ, "it calls for a long-term military presence in the Middle East."

This is also not surprising.

Their earlier statements demanding major political progress in Iraq (like Coleman's, "There is a sense that by September, you've got to see real action on the part of Iraqis") in effect only demanded better PR about progress in Iraq.

That they got in spades.

The marketing of the surge in the past weeks has basically gone unchallenged by Democrats, giving these GOPers the sense that they have the political cover to keep opposing a fundamental change in course.

But that could well be false comfort.

As Atrios noted yesterday: "the right wing noise machine hasn't managed to move public opinion on Iraq at all, [though] it's been quite successful at moving the elite discourse...."

That was backed up by a new Democracy Corps poll analysis: "the country's political environment remains essentially unchanged ... attitudes on Iraq are unmoved and voters indicate little receptivity to reports of progress from Petraeus and the Bush administration."

Despite the reports of Democratic leaders foolishly thinking about forging an empty compromise, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is smartly characterizing the (not new) plan to wind down the surge next year to return troop levels to 130,000:

I mean, please, it's an insult to the intelligence of the American people that that is a new direction in Iraq ... what we saw yesterday was by no means a new direction, except in terms of a 10-year or more commitment for a long term occupation of Iraq....

That's the question that these 12 GOP Senators must be faced with repeatedly -- will you keep us in Iraq for at least 10 more years and send over the next generation of our kids? Or will you vote with Democrats to end the destabilizing occupation?

McConnell is grievously mistaken if he thinks this month's spin job means his fellow senators can win by supporting legislation that maintains a "long-term military presence."

But he will only be mistaken, if we keep up the pressure.

Cross-posted at the Campaign for America's Future blog

Follow Bill Scher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billscher

Comments

[Samson1]

I think moveon.org ought to run an ad campaign using 10 year old boys and girls as the "next generation of U.S Warrors".

[VOTER]

BUSH LOYALISTS SUPPORT 10 MORE YEARS IN IRAQ.

ARE YOU READY FOR YOUR CHILDREN TO SERVE?

IF, "YES" VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2008!

[dadw5boys]

YES,
AND WE CAN ALL WATCH THE LOCAL DRAFT BOARD APPOINTEES GET RICH TAKING PAYOFF TO GET RICH KIDS DEFERMENTS LIKE THEY DID DURING VIETANM.
HERE IT COST $2,000 TO $3,000 TO GET YOUR NAME TAKEN OFF THE DRAFT.

[researcher]

it is called the industrial military complex and they are all in bed with them demos and repubs alike.

ike warned us but no one listened.

jefferson warned us again no one listened.

we keep looking for a savior to bail us out. wont happen. must be a revolution maybe a voter revolution maybe not but a revolution to clean house and change the system.

robin williams in his movie said it best we must change politicans like we change diapers often and for the same reasons.

americans washington dc is corrupt do we amerians have the stomach to change it?

captialism had to come to this because it is based in greed not representation of the people. it is designed to make profits not designed to help people. ie 50 mil americans without health care. national disgrace.

reagan started the decline of capitalism with his deregulation. love it the repub god reagan started the decline of their cherished capitalism.

unchecked capitalism is at the heart of the corruption in washington dc.

[Wilbur]

No one listened to Ike? Excuse me, but JFK tried to rein in the CIA and the Military-Industril Complex. His reward? Being gunned down by a triangulated crossfire in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, TX., at 12:35 p.m. CST. That was the day democracy in America died.

Wilbur

[dadw5boys]

I agree Wilbur. When JFK signed the Excutive Order that the U.S. Government would print it's own money redeemable for Silver he signed his own death warrent.
Oswald, who still belives that. Anyone who was watching saw the gun smoke from the KNOLL that day and no matter how many lies they tell we saw it and we are not blind!

[research]

industrial military complex is the same as "fascism", the favorite government of the conservatives.

[Robert59]

Until they start voting with the Democrats, their talk is just talk. I suspect it will take a really senior member of their party to push them to break with the president.

Lugar could be the one, but since Warner's retiring they won't see him as taking a political risk if he votes with the Dems.

[Guitarsandmore]

How many years have we had troops in Korea? I would guess fifty years or so. This is what they are going for.

We have had troops in Japan and Germany since World War II. This is what Republicans want to do to you.

[stavros]

Guterman:Regardless of what one’s wishes are, does anyone really believe that the U.S.A. will be completely out of Iraq anytime soon?
One can only hope, pray if that's your belief.

[guterman]

This is likely not going to be a popular opinion, but I see the U.S.A. having some presence in Iraq for at least the next 10 years and probably much, much longer. If I am correct, we have had people in Germany for about half a century. The question is how many and what we will be doing in Iraq. Regardless of what one’s wishes are, does anyone really believe that the U.S.A. will be completely out of Iraq anytime soon?

[JudgeMoonbox]

Guterman says, "This is likely not going to be a popular opinion, but I see the U.S.A. having some presence in Iraq for at least the next 10 years and probably much, much longer. If I am correct, we have had people in Germany for about half a century."

I think there is a big difference: we had enough troops in Germany to convince the Nazis they lost. Bush never sent enough troops to Iraq because he's in denial that he'd have to cancel his elitist tax cuts if he wants to win the peace.

[connski]

There's only one reason for the long term military presence: oil, resource and market hegemony for the US over Russia and China. The objective's to control the belt from Iraq to India militarily or by treaty. The next two big pins to fall; Iran and Pakistan. Don't be surprised. This is the Grand Game of the Neocons and many Democrats. The Republicans, backed by corporate greed play it brutally. The Democrats in a gentler way...no fly zones to nurture democracy among Iraqi Kurds.

[Herrington]

Bingo connski. Everyone on the planet knows that the Bush justifications for going into Iraq and for staying in Iraq were and are lies. Examination of why he lied and lies leads to covering for big oil interests and concomitant defense contractor profits. As you say, “hegemony” of oil++.

Who should fear Russian and Chinese control of the world oil supply? We might, along with our corporate masters, because oil is the stuff that powers our economy. And we are not in a position to do without it, nor will we be due to reluctance of the oil industry to give up their highly profitable business and their political influence. It is almost cold war thinking, that a nation in a “global economy” should be concerned with the prospect of another nation cornering the market on a commodity. But then that reveals the truth about the “global economy”.

The “global economy” is warfare, relatively cold at the moment, hot war happening only in Iraq. In the perfectly cold light of geopolitical calculation, our economic opponents may be happy to see us run up a trillion dollars in public debt to try and secure a share of the oil commodity market that they do not need as much as we. We will spend the inheritance of a whole generation for a commodity that must become obsolete, as soon it will cease to exist.

So where is the wisdom in that? Oil is strategic for us because our infrastructure was unwisely built upon it. But because we are the largest market for oil we have a substantial say in the issue. Should we reduce consumption by ten percent, it would ruin OPEC, BP and Exxon. On the other hand, if developing countries build their infrastructure based on oil, they would be as big a fools as we were.

I can’t see a congressman taking the argument that oil is a long term strategic interest any more seriously than the facts support. And the fact is, that the interest in controlling oil resources belongs mostly to the oil companies.

[research]

A trillion dollars would buy a whole lot of alternative energy! Even at the current price of solar 3$/installed average watt, 300 GW! that 300 1 GW power plants! That would replace 1/3 over all of the USA power plant! Replace over half over the coals plants!

[MrJoyboy]

Why does America have to announce a withdrawal timeline? Just start withdrawing troops without announcing it to the world--a few hundred here a few hundred there, day after day, until they are all out.

[dadw5boys]

I could organize the planes and troops and equipment to withdraw within 30 hours going thru Saudi Arabia and dropping men on air craft carriers and moving equipment to Afganistan.
ENTERPRIZE SOFTWARE CAN ORGANIZE THE EFFORTS OF 5,000 PEOPLE EASILY AND PROJECT SOFTWARE CAN BREAK IT DOWN TO INDIVIDUALS.
tHEY ARE STAYING BECAUSE THEY WANT TO STAY.

[research]

...One day soon, the Iraqi wake up and the US soldiers are gone! Little notes drop from an airplane as it flies home to American...

"Sorry about that"

75% or more of the Iraqi say:

"Finally!"

[Infolib]

I think moveon and other activist groups should carry on a campaign against these recalcitrant Republican senators in a major way. They are traitors to this country because they support a running out the clock tactic using our troops to throw in the meat grinder. They should be pilloried for this; they should go to jail not be re-elected.

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

Exactlyl, hopeless. There are at least two lobbyists per congressperson these days.

Until we have publicly-funded elections and get the corporate money out of the equation, WE WILL BE IN IRAQ UNTIL HELL FREEZES OVER OR UNTIL WWIII SPELLS THE END OF ALL OF US.

[jqcitizen]

It appears that at least two of these Senators (Dole and Warner) may not seek re-election and should not be concerned about repercussions from the RNC.

Those that are seeking re-election might be well advised to finally listen to the desires of the voters and shed themselves of their well deserved titles -Bush/Cheney "RUBBERSTAMPS".

[hopeless277]

Are you trying to be funny? OF COURSE they want 10 more years in Iraq. Who do you think pays them? Don't say the taxpayer because we all know that's not true. It's KBR and Halliburton. The big winners in Iraq. So just forget putting pressure on these guys. They have a wall of money to hide behind.

[snaggster]

Don't forget the Dems. They wanna get paid, too. If some Republicans turn on King George W, what will Nancy & Harry do?! How could they fuck that up? It obvious that they don't care about doing the right thing. Or even the thing they were elected to do. They're only interested in winning elections and, since they think this inaction is what we wanted, they won't be winning many. Why vote for phony Republican lite? We can just vote for the real thing.

[allwrite]

If they do nothing, and let Bush and his supporters cruise merrily along, they get to stand on the sidelines and hurl criticism. If this is their strategy, it is no less irresponsible than the actions of the Bush enablers.

[dadw5boys]

According to EXPERTS on the middle east if Iran is EVER brought into the war it will be 30YEARS TO 50 YEARS.

[deZerTomB]

I agree, 10 years is nothing, we're looking at 20-50 range at least then everything will change when the oil runs out.

But, I also agree everyone needs to keep pressing the warmongers and Bush supporters, HOW LONG? Patraeus would not, could not answer that question for Congress.

[Stoyver]

Ever wonder why permanent bases are being built? How about the $20 billion embassy compound? We intend to use those bases to facilitate permanent occupation of Iraq. How did our oil get under their sand anyway?

[laocoon]

Oil is like a wild animal. no kidding in US law that is the root principal and it does move through the porous rock. How it crossed the ocean is hard to figure though.