Pat Dollard | Young Americans

The best political strategy is still victory.

WSJ
BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, July 20, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

When Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar broke with President Bush on Iraq last month, he was hailed by antiwar groups as brave. When the Republican this week bucked Democrats and refused to vote for an immediate troop withdrawal, he was hailed by conservatives as wise. Mr. Lugar might well be both brave and wise, but before he’s any of those things he’s a politician.

And it’s politics, not principle, that explains the seeming disconnect this week between the growing number of Republican senators who loudly distance themselves from the war, yet refuse to join Democrats in their antiwar votes. As Mr. Lugar, New Mexico’s Pete Domenici and Ohio’s George Voinovich, all successively bailed on the surge, the headlines built it up as a great Republican Rift, a “turning point” in the war, which would finally deliver Harry Reid the votes he needed for withdrawal.

Instead, Mr. Reid got a fizzling 52 ayes for withdrawal this week, and not a one from Republicans who’d so recently and forcefully criticized the war. The few senators who crossed to Mr. Reid’s side were primarily those who’d long been griping about the war, say Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel. The rest of the GOP war apostates were MIA.

Confusing as this might seem, it’s also precisely what many of those Republican breakaways intended from the start. Mr. Domenici, New Hampshire’s John Sununu, Minnesota’s Norm Coleman–all are panicked about next year’s election and desperately want Iraq off the table. But political retreat is no easy thing.
One the one hand, they are under intense pressure to start placating independents and other voters unhappy with the course of the war. Anti-war groups are making it as hot as possible, with a coalition of liberal groups launching a summer-long blitz against key Republican senators who are vulnerable in next year’s election, demanding they support withdrawal. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has joined in, running ads, like one in Mr. Coleman’s Minnesota, that show footage of bloody Iraq combat and that suggest if he doesn’t abandon the current strategy he will be responsible for further combat deaths.

This explains the recent wave of GOP defections, encapsulated by Mr. Domenici’s speech that slammed the Iraqi government for not doing enough, called for a “redirection of U.S. military policy in Iraq,” and demanded legislation “to create conditions by which American combat troops can be removed.” Mr. Domenici’s message to war critics: I feel your anger.

On the other hand, few of these Republicans feel free to completely jump ship. That’s because for every home-state independent unhappy with Iraq, there is a home-state conservative who agrees with the president that a precipitous withdrawal is a grave mistake. These voters have largely stuck with Mr. Bush and continue to harbor disdain for the cut-and-run crowd.

That much has been obvious in the fortunes of senators such as Oregon’s Gordon Smith. He decided to get out ahead of the political crush, and broke ranks with Mr. Bush and his Iraq policy last year. This turn-tailing won him marks with certain independents, and a pass on some of the more vitriolic campaigning by antiwar groups. Yet Mr. Smith’s overall approval rating has nonetheless fallen in the state. His base is none too pleased with his actions.

The recent flurry of action-inaction by certain GOP senators is instead about laying the groundwork for September. They’re putting President Bush on notice, with a goal of mau-mauing him into changing course. Come September, they hope Gen. David Petraeus will deliver a cautiously optimistic report to Congress, making the case the situation has improved. Mr. Bush could then propose his own pre-emptive troop drawdown. Not the immediate pullout demanded by Democrats, of course, but a slower withdrawal, over the next 18 months.

In this way, they can take credit for moving Mr. Bush into winding down the war. They’d not only please war critics, but provide themselves cover with the base, since they’d simply be backing Mr. Bush’s own plan.

Don’t underestimate the number of senators pushing for this outcome. At least a dozen or so who are up for re-election next year, who have so far publicly held tight in their support for Mr. Bush’s surge, are in the back room demanding the White House throw them a political bone in September.

What happens then? For now, the White House can claim mini-victory. Its near-term goal was always to squeak through the summer without binding legislation, giving the surge time to show gains. It has now accomplished that goal: Mr. Reid has appeased his antiwar left with his all-night Iraq pajama party, and is calling it quits on further Iraq-related amendments. House Minority Leader John Boehner meanwhile manfully convinced his own caucus to sit tight in July, losing only four members to recent withdrawal legislation.

Nervous Republicans are nonetheless forcing Mr. Bush into a corner this September. If the president is principled–as he has been unfailingly with regards to the war so far–he will predicate his next move purely upon the military situation in Iraq. Gen. Peter Pace recently said the surge had resulted in a “sea change” in Iraq’s security situation, but that’s still a long way from suggesting Iraqis are able to hold the gains so painfully won by U.S. troops. And honest withdrawal–one truly linked to Iraqi success–might yet be years in the offing.

Mr. Bush’s party is instead requiring he act on their own artificial political deadlines–which take no account of the ground situation in Iraq, but instead count backward from November 2008. What they fail to understand is that their own strategy is just as politically perilous as sticking with Mr. Bush. Should they win the day and force the administration into a premature pullout, they risk taking the blame for any ugly Iraqi outcome: Genocide, a regional blow-up, a stronger al Qaeda that follows our troops back home. No comment from any of these Machiavellis as to how any of this helps them in next November.
Shaky Republicans might instead consider that the best political scenario next year would be to present voters with an Iraq that is beginning to function successfully, and to take credit for having the vision and fortitude to back the U.S. military through in its mission. A mission, by the way, that most of them voted for in 2002. Then they could be wise, and brave–and principled.

Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays.