As I write this, the United States Senate is many hours into a remarkable all-night session debating how to end the Iraq war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called this marathon session to highlight the Republicans' obstructionism on putting together a reasonable plan to end the slaughter of U.S. troops in Iraq. Republicans, of course, decried the all-nighter as merely a political stunt.
They're right. It is just a political stunt. But it's a doozy!
I must admit, I never saw Harry Reid as all that effective a "cheerleader" for Democratic positions, especially when it comes to such momentous issues as ending a disastrous war. When Reid was elected Majority Leader, I did have my qualms. His dry-as-toast and completely un-charismatic television presence led me to this conclusion. But tonight, I congratulate Reid for his success at getting good media coverage and shining the spotlight on exactly who is responsible for delaying the end of the war -- the Senate Republicans.
Especially since some of those Senate Republicans (many of whom face re-election next year) appear to be getting just a tad bit nervous about continuing to back President Bush's ill-conceived war.
Right after Bush announced his escalation strategy this January, I wrote an article on ending the Iraq war, which I must say has so far been fairly prophetic. I ended the article with the following:
So while a few Republicans are jumping ship now on legally meaningless concurrent resolutions, by summertime it will be a full-scale rout. Republicans will have the time and distance from Bush to say, "Well, we tried the surge, but it obviously didn't work. It's time to bring the troops home." Some of them are already saying this publicly in one way or another: "If the surge isn't working by summer or fall, I won't support it any more." As time goes by this summer, more and more of them will abandon Bush, publicly.
It's impossible to tell from this distance what form this will take, but at this point, Republicans in Congress are going to have had enough -- and they're going to tell Bush in no uncertain terms to "declare victory" and start bringing troops home. And to bring enough of them home by election day that they have a prayer of keeping their jobs.
Sooner or later, a delegation of congressional Republicans is going to knock on the White House's door, and tell Bush that "it's over." But until the pieces are in place for that to happen, the soldiers are not going to start coming home.
Now, as I see it, we are currently at the stage described in the second paragraph of that excerpt. But all the pieces are not quite in place for the third paragraph, which -- in my humble estimate -- will not happen until September, after Petraeus' report.
Much has been made in the media, in the past few weeks, of "Republican senators breaking with the President on the Iraq war." This is because they've given a few speeches, given a few interviews; and otherwise generally put forth the impression that they're "jumping ship" on Iraq.
But they aren't actually "jumping ship" quite yet. Talk is cheap, but watch closely how they vote in the next few weeks. They're still going to give Bush until September before they openly defy him by voting reliably with the Democrats on "end the war" bills. Oh, sure, they may toss one vote or another over to the various Democratic proposals -- but always when they already know the Democrats don't have the 60 votes required to move anything forward.
So why are they publicly "talking the talk," if they are not prepared to "walk the walk"? Listening to their public statements and reading the tea leaves to divine their meaning has led me to the following conclusion: they're sending a very personal message to Bush. The message is really a warning, and it has two aspects to it. Firstly: "You've got one last chance to get out in front of this issue, to be a leader (in other words), and to announce a change in strategy that we can vote for -- because it originates from a Republican president. Or else we're going to vote with the Democrats in September, and they will score those political points, not you." And secondly: "You, Mr. President, don't have to face the voters next fall. We do. If we're still in Iraq on election day next year, the rout of 2006 is going to look like a Sunday School picnic, and Democrats will capture the White House and vast chunks of Congress as well. We are not going to allow that to happen. You have already destroyed your presidency over your incompetent handling of this war, but we will not let you destroy the entire Republican Party as well."
Of course, this message is going to fall on deaf ears in the Oval Office. Bush is just too stubborn to let his divine vision for Iraq fall apart before he leaves office. Also, he's not real big on the concept of admitting mistakes. He's betting his "legacy" that he can veto everything that comes to him, and continue the war up until Inaugural Day 2009. Then, if a Democrat gets elected, it will all fall apart on their watch, and he can go on deluding himself that it all would have worked out fine... except for those meddling Democrats.
The problem for Democrats, which I have been pointing out repeatedly, is that they need 60 to 70 Republican defectors in the House, and 17 or 18 in the Senate. Which is why what Harry Reid is currently doing is indeed nothing more than political theater. Reid knows he doesn't even have the 60 votes necessary to end debate, much less a veto-proof "supermajority" of 67 votes.
That may change in September, but getting 17 or 18 GOP Senators (the difference is whether Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, who is still recovering from a brain injury, is able to vote by then) is going to be tough to do. Only 21 of them are up for re-election next year. Getting a veto-proof majority in the House may be easier to do, but we need supermajorities in both houses in order to end the war.
One hopeful sign is that it's still only July, and Republican Senators are already publicly disavowing the war. This is earlier than I would have guessed. I didn't expect so many of them (and such high-ranking ones) to be chomping at the bit before their August vacation. This is a good sign that more and more of them will follow them in September (only 8 weeks from now), after Petraeus gives his report.
But it still may not be enough. Without a solid block of 67, Bush is going to veto anything that comes across his desk.
This is where the Maliki scenario comes in. Maliki said something awfully strange last week, and then almost immediately backed off from it. He basically said that the Iraqi military is fully capable of taking over "any time" if U.S. forces should leave Iraq. Then he (slightly) modified it (after pressure from Bush, assumably) to say that -- possibly by the end of this year -- they'll be fully ready to take over, should the Americans start leaving.
Now, reading Maliki's tea leaves is tough for many reasons. There's a language/translation barrier, to begin with. And then there are two huge filters to what he says -- first from the Iraqi media, and then from the American media. So it's not as easy to discern what exactly he's up to, from this remote distance.
But if you put yourself in Maliki's shoes, you can understand a few things he must be thinking right now, and guess at some of the pressures he's having to deal with.
In the first place, he's not stupid. He can see CNN and other American media, and he knows what is going on in Washington, D.C. He's doing some tea-leaf reading himself. And he knows that there's a strong possibility that American soldiers will be waving goodbye for good to his country -- in the very near future. Even if the details aren't clear, the general picture is definitely getting clearer: American troops are about to start going home.
Now, we (as Americans) are free to ignore what happens in Iraq after U.S. troops leave. Once the television news media decide "Americans aren't getting killed anymore, Iraq's no longer a story," then they are going to get out of Dodge, too.
Maliki doesn't have this luxury. He has to plan for what happens next in his country. Part of that is showing confidence in the Iraqi military, and another part may be his desire to have influence on exactly how the U.S. packs up and leaves. Maliki has also been complaining recently about getting more powerful weapons for his Army than just machine guns. He could be thinking about all of that American war matériel and whether we're going to take it with us when we leave -- or whether he can convince us that it'd make more sense for us just to leave it there for him to use. There's a lot of tanks, helicopters, and armored vehicles lying around in Iraq, and it's safe to assume Maliki is currently eyeing them all, with the thought of talking Bush into leaving them behind, for him to use.
Then there is Muqtada al-Sadr, who controls Maliki's biggest bloc of supporters in the Iraqi parliament. Maliki's political "base," in other words. Al-Sadr is not shy about what he wants -- a firm deadline for Americans to leave Iraq. He will continue to pressure Maliki into demanding such a date from America.
Now, so far, Maliki has resisted. He has toed the Bush line, and pretty much repeated the White House talking points he is given. Which is why what he said last week is so interesting. If Maliki were to make overtures to congressional Democrats (without the White House being included) on the issue of fixing a firm date for withdrawal, Bush will undoubtedly be furious.
Or perhaps... if Bush is smart... he won't. Because this could be the perfect answer for all concerned: Maliki, al-Sadr, Bush, congressional Democrats and Republicans, the U.S. military, and the American public.
If Maliki burns this bridge, and publicly starts calling for a withdrawal timetable or schedule for American troops, then our involvement with the Iraq war will be over. Not immediately, but indeed inevitably.
Because Bush will then have the political cover he so desperately needs. Bush was asked at a press conference earlier this year what he would do if Maliki asked us to leave, and he unequivocally stated that Iraq is a sovereign state, and that if they asked us to leave, then we would. So he's already on record supporting this basic concept.
Which he should -- because it is going to be a lifesaver for him. He's being backed into a corner now by a Democratic Congress, and the prospect of an unsavory open revolt within his own party. There aren't a lot of good ways out of this situation for him, politically.
But if Maliki actually asked us to leave, then Bush could shrug his shoulders, and resignedly declare: "We tried to give Iraq a democracy, but now they want us to leave, so we have to leave;" and then, when it all fell apart, he would have a better scapegoat to blame for the resulting fiasco than even the Democrats: the Iraqis themselves screwed it up. This would be Talking Point Number One from the White House, from that day forward.
A close friend of mine (who is much more willing to give credence to wild conspiracy theories) believes that this is all a Machiavellian plot from the White House itself: that they told Maliki to test-market the idea of "the Iraq army can take over any time," and that they prearranged with Maliki that they would immediately disavow it from Washington, just to see how the American media reacted. That when Bush finds it most politically advantageous, he will demand that Maliki ask us to leave. Then Bush can throw up his hands, say "Oh, well, we tried," and then get out.
A few years ago, I might have believed it, too. But, at this point, I just don't give that scenario much credit. Karl Rove just ain't the political genius he is cracked up to be, in other words. Tom Toles' recent funny sketch notwithstanding.
But whoever is pressuring Maliki -- and for whatever reasons he had for saying what he said -- this may be a small and almost unnoticed foreshadowing of the real trigger for ending the American involvement in the Iraq quagmire. If the decision to set a withdrawal date came from Maliki, and not from Democrats on Capitol Hill, it would be easier for Republican politicians in this country to go along with such a plan.
While the spotlight is on the Senate this morning -- and will be for a few more weeks to come -- perhaps we should be paying closer attention to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. Because he might just be the one who gets America out of Iraq.
Visit Chris' blog at: ChrisWeigant.com