When Centrism is Cowardice

By Mimikatz

First, the Senate scheduled a cloture vote on the Webb Amendment and it failed.  The good news is that 56 Senators voted to cut off debate, and only 41 voted to continue.  In the Senate Kabuki, it is necessary to cut off debate to get a vote, so the 41 voting for debate actually don't want a vote.  This vote, against letting the troops adequately rest between deployments, is a vote against the troops, and expect the Dems to campaign accordingly.  Evidently Senators Warner, Snowe, Collins, Sununu, Smith and Coleman voted with the Democrats, along with Hagel, who was a co-sponsor, while Lieberman voted with the Republicans, and Tim Johnson and one other did not vote. 

So what should the Senate do next?  It is time for Harry Reid to take off the gloves.  When conservative Southern Dems and their allies filibustered civil rights legislation in the 1960s, they had real filibusters.  A Senator got the floor and refused to give it up, talking forever, yielding to colleagues when they needed a bathroom break.  Cots were set up, and the debate went on for days and nights.  Sometimes Senators talked about why the bill was bad, but sometimes they read the telephone book or otherwise wasted time.  No one who wanted a vote could get the floor to call for a vote.  In those days a petition to cut off debate (cloture motion) required 66 votes.  Eventually LBJ was able to twist arms after the Kennedy Assosination, and the logjam was broken for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The rules were changed to require only 60 votes for cloture.  But to get anything done, now once the minority party (or sometimes even just one Senator) signals an intent to filibuster, a cloture vote is held, and that is it.

What Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs to do now is to call GOP Minority leader Mitch McConnell's bluff and require the GOP to actually filibuster.  Bring up Webb-Hagel again, or do it with Levin-Reed.  But make them filibuster.  Make it plain to the Senators that there will be no August recess until the Defense bill is done, and if the GOP doesn't want to face losing an upperdown vote, they can filibuster for the whole country to see.  The TV stations will love the theater, and the GOP will look as stupid as they did when they staged Bill Frist's talk-a-thon on judges when the Dems wouldn't allow up or down votes.

And Levin-Reed should include a requirement that all troops (except possibly a few special forces) be withdrawn by some date in 2008, be it April 1 or June 30.  That means no residual force.  As quoted in Think Progress, Stephen Biddle, an advisor to General Petraeus and the Iraq Study Group echoes what I have been saying:

Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are confronting today. … It is unrealistic to expect that we can pull back to some safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting — this would be neither safe nor productive.

If the surge is unacceptable, the better option is to cut our losses and withdraw altogether. In fact, the substantive case for either extreme — surge or outright withdrawal — is stronger than for any policy between. The surge is a long-shot gamble. But middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange.

Moderation and centrism are normally the right instincts in American politics, and many lawmakers in both parties desperately want to find a workable middle ground on Iraq. But while the politics are right, the military logic is not.  (Emphasis is Think Progress'.)

This is absolutely correct.  Adopting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, many of which, as Think Progress points out, have been overtaken by events, is just a dodge for avoiding a decision.  But if we can't bring stability to Iraq without more troops, troops which we simply do not have, then the only reasonable and right thing to do is to get out in an orderly a manner as possible.  And to accomplish that result, the Congress has to face reality and do what the voters elected them to do--vote on the substantive measure, not on procedural gambits.

Senator Reid, you are in charge, and you must heed the wishes of the people, 70% of whom want this occupation to end.  Make them vote.

Comments

[P J Evans]

Hang the 'not supporting the troops' label around the necks of the 41 senators. Make sure it also includes 'not supporting the families of the troops' and 'not supporting small businesses / first responders / National Guard members'.

I'd think a lot of constituents would understand the last two, even if they've never realized 'supporting the troops' isn't just 'sending them over there'.

[Jodi]

Mimikatz,

why the Hell do you want to leave the Special Forces over there? Do you want them to be fighting on one side or the other of a Civil War?

Because once our ground troops leave, it will be a no hold barred Civil War with surrounding countries participating.

[P J Evans]

Troll, you seem to be having problems with your reading comprehension today:

That means no residual force.

What part of that is leaving the SF over there? (If they're left over there, it's the problem of the generals and the @#$%^&* in the White House who sent them.)

[Cujo359]

If Reid doesn't follow your advice, Mimikatz, it will be at least the second time he's let such an opportunity pass. Even if the Dems do have a very slim majority in the Senate, they could still do better than this.

[KdmFromPhila]

Nice post. You're right, it's time for Reid to take the gloves off.

[Mimikatz]

No, my idea is not that special forces take sides in the civil war. I'm just making an allowance for such forces. Special forces by nature don't require the kind of big support apparatus that is part of our problem in Iraq--no bases with Pizza Huts or Burger Kings for them. They by definition don't need "force protection", so we are talking at best in the hundreds or maybe 1-2 thousand. They can hunt the real al Qaeda, if there are any, and keep tabs on the border areas. According to Bob Baer, they did that between Gulf War I and the Iraq invasion. It is an effort to make the measure more palatable. But I don't want combat troops or training and arming of militias in the guise of training Iraqi troops and no big support apparatus. I'd close down most of the Embassy too, so it could get by with a minimal guard.

[Jodi]

P J Evans

quote from Mimikatz with my bold

And Levin-Reed should include a requirement that all troops (except possibly a few special forces) be withdrawn by some date in 2008, be it April 1 or June 30. That means no residual force.

The last sentence you quoted conflicts with the bold letter words.

[P J Evans]

The story in the LA Times, way down the web page in 'National', has the headline 'GOP again blocks change in war policy'.

I'd say 'someone is finally getting it' but I think it's only the person who wrote that headline.

[Mimikatz]

Please note that the Iraq War is now considered a mistake by more people than thought the Vietnam War was a mistake while it was still going on (62%), although after it ended, more came to view the Vietnam War as a mistake. I suspect that will happen here too.

[Mimikatz]

Jodi--the residual force that many people talk about is 30,000-50,000 troops. They would have an uncertain and probably impossible mission, as Biddle pointed out in the quote in my post. As I explained in my earlier comment, if there are any special forces remaining, they are essentially for intelligence purposes and limited covert ops, and are on their own with no support system. I can see a rationale for that, as I can see a rationale for troops in Kuwait or Qatar or Bahrain or at sea or somewhere they aren't so hostile to us, although I'd just as soon we bring everyone home.

[freepatriot]

shit stain has problems with REALITY COMPREHENSION

it ain't just reading that confuses the shit stain

everything confuses the shit stain

If you send the shit stain to the store for catsup, you can be sure the shit stain will come home with mustard

some people just don't get it

and the shit stain is ALWAYS in that group

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and I never met a person with as little knowledge as the shit stain is armed with

slapping down the shit stain is a lot like like shooting fish in a barrel

and I always liked shooting fish in a barrel ...

[Jodi]

Mimikatz

excuse my invective.

I agree with you that there should be no residual force, no training force even, since without support they would be sitting ducks.

I probably have some more knowledge here than most, but Special Operations Forces are being used in many areas in Iraq as Super Shooters. They are being used as an "anti-sniper force" in many areas. Yes they still have missions like Delta and the Rangers in the popular movie Blackhawk Down, but they are also being used more and more to shore up the weak spots in a very porous line of defense of the occupation.

It does make sense if you are a Field General to have all the shooters, and certainly the best shooters contributing every day.

In fact there has been a lot of conflict about who is in charge in Iraq of the various Forces. Too many Generals and Admirals can spoil the soup just like too many cooks.

[freepatriot]

I'd like to mention something Off-Topic here:

after watching Michael Moore destroy wolf blitzer and "THE QUACK sanjay gupta" for two days on chicken noodle network, I'd like to request that anybody who makes reference to sanjay gupta please use the title "THE QUACK" before sanjay gupta's name

any "so called" journalist who fucks up the facts in a hit piece deserves to covered with all the shit we can heap on him

and any "so called" doctor who would LIE ABOUT MEDICAL STATISTICS on a news show deserves to be stripped of his licence

The Quack sanjay gupta got caught doing BOTH yesterday

I ain't accepting appologies from people who could have got the facts right in the first place with a little EFFORT

sanjay gupta is a LAZY LYING QUACK DOCTOR and a LAZY LYING QUACK JOURNALIST

and we should let the world know that

thanks for your time,

and now we return you to your previously scheduled topic:

[Mimikatz]

That is an interesting observation, Jodi. If we pull out most of the troops, then we wouldn't need the sharpshooters to protect them, so pulling out the troops would necessarily limit the mission of special forces.

We seem to be in agreeement on the training aspect--give it up.

The bill the House will vote on, evidently later this week, allows for the following to be done if the President can explain and justify the mission:

3) As part of the justification required by paragraph (2), the President shall, at a minimum, address whether it is necessary for the Armed Forces to carry out the following missions:

(A) Protecting United States diplomatic facilities and United States citizens, including members of the Armed Forces who are engaged in carrying out other missions.
(B) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions.
(C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.
(D) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

This is too much for me. I'd take out the training and I think "force protection" is just a circular argument for leaving more forces than necessary.

[oldtree]

and why not remove Joey boy from his committee chair and replace him with a junior senator? it is nothing but a divisive hard right wing GOP senator being pampered like the love poodle of the paranoid.

[P J Evans]

C) Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.
(D) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Those are what got us into trouble in Vietnam (replace 'Al Qaeda' with 'Viet Cong' and 'Iraqi Security Forces' with 'ARVN', and see how big a difference it makes). Let's not make that mistake again, please!

[freepatriot]

sorry PJ, we've already made all of the other "Mistakes" that we made in Vietnam, and presnit george is determined to prove that Vietnam was winnable, so that's the next mistake on the menu

and that causes a revelation:, maybe george bush wouldn't be so easy to predict if every person over 40 hadn't already seen this fiasco in its' original version

[GinnyD]

yeah, but obviously you don't understand the old fashioned way the Senate works. They don't need to filibuster any more, because if they don't consent to bringing an amendment up for a vote, Reid is forced to file for cloture, and he can't get 60 votes. Wonder how it feels to Reid to have the tables turned on him. Do away with cloture!!!

[P J Evans]

freepatriot

Too bad we don't have a time machine to get the word back so as to send him to 'Nam (or boot camp anyway) instead of TANG. A little properly-directed honesty in a letter to a senator from TX in 1970 or so ... or in a letter to an admissions committee.

[freepatriot]

hey, some repuglicans have found a way to support the troops

olympia snowe and gordon smith are co-sponsering a bill that says we remove our troops in 120 days see Truthout

put a fork in george, he's fucking done

anybody wanna take bets on when the temper tantrum happens ???

I've been waiting for the moment that george accuses us all of being unpatriotic, looks like we're almost there

hey george, that snowball is gaining momentum, and it's coming right at you

It ain't exactly "Profiles In Courage", but if it brings my soldiers home, I don't care

[Dismayed]

Agree 100%.

[freepatriot]

well, learn about the way the NEW Senate works (and this was in the wapo)

Facing crumbling support for the war among their own members, Senate Republican leaders yesterday sought to block bipartisan efforts to force a change in the American military mission in Iraq.

But the GOP leadership's use of a parliamentary tactic requiring at least 60 votes to pass any war legislation only encouraged the growing number of Republican dissenters to rally and seek new ways to force President Bush's hand. They are weighing a series of proposals that would change the troops' mission from combat to counterterrorism, border protection and the training of Iraqi security forces.

how's that "Permenent Repuglican Majority" lookin now, kkkarl ???

[tekel]

but- if we withdraw all the troops, who is going to guard all of those bases that Halliburton built for us?

And who is going to keep the arabs from stealing our oil?

I think we're witnessing a gambler's fallacy here that any MBA president should recognize: this is the "sunk cost problem" or the "pot committed" bet. Bush can't withdraw the troops because he's pot-committed to the war- but this is exactly when someone who understood finance correctly would pick up the chips and walk away from the table.

It is not good business to allow sunk costs to influence future allocations of capital.

[P J Evans]

tekel

George slept through those classes.
It's pretty clear to most of us that his MBA is a courtesy degree, and otherwise meaningless, because he certainly didn't learn anything in class.

[Mimikatz]

Ok, Reid but doesn't have to call for cloture. He can just extend debate on the measure. Let the Dems shred Bush's war, over and over. Talk about the troops--the injuries, the "invisible head wounds" caused by the IEDs, for which they are given ibuprofen and told to get back to duty. Let the GOP defend it. Take notes, and use the GOP's statements in commercials against them. You will note that of the 7 Senators who voted to shut off debate, every one of them is up for reelection. Soon enough we will hear from Pajamas Domenici, John Cornyn, Susan Collins, Liddy Dole and maybe even James "hot enough for you?" Inhofe, the new person from Wyoming, Larry Craig in ID, plus a resignation from Ted Stevens.