GOP back on offense on Iraq war

John Bresnahan and Martin Kady II:

For the first time since losing control of Congress in 2006, Republicans are back on offense in the political struggle over the Iraq war, as Democratic plans to force a change in strategy by President Bush through peeling away his GOP support continue to yield few results.

Republicans are increasingly buoyed by perceived divisions among Democrats, seeming signs of progress on the ground in Iraq and the fact that the first brigade of U.S. troops started coming home Tuesday.

Democrats insist they are still united on ending the war.

Public opinion polls also overwhelmingly favor Democrats who back a quick end to the conflict, and on Tuesday, Democratic leaders unveiled a report showing that the Iraq campaign will cost far more — as much as $3.5 trillion — if the United States stays engaged in Iraq for another decade.

But after a summer of bitter partisan battles over the war, Democrats are going into an Iraq funding battle this week with little hope of dividing Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill, and they privately seem resigned that the White House will continue to have its way on funding the long-running conflict.

The House is set to debate an Iraq funding bill that liberals believe isn’t strong enough, Republicans refuse to embrace and the president plans to veto.

The Senate, meanwhile, is expected to take up the bill Thursday.

But with Republicans insisting on a 60-vote, filibuster-proof threshold and Democrats saying they won’t send a bill to Bush without a troop withdrawal timetable, the measure is doomed.

There is a pervasive sense among Republicans, and even some Democrats, that the war debate has been reframed by signs of success and that both sides need to adapt to facts on the ground.

“I think momentum has been lost for the argument that the surge has failed,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of Bush’s strongest supporters in Congress.

“The momentum is to allow the surge to continue. I don’t see anyone defecting from our side. If there’s any change in votes, it will be on their side.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a moderate Democrat who supports a change in mission but not a mandatory troop withdrawal, said, “People understand that there has been a military success in Iraq. ... There’s an expectation that more of that will happen.”

...

So far, the Democrats’ message continues to be that the Bush “surge” has been somewhat successful in reducing violence, but political reconciliation within Iraq remains negligible, undermining the very reason why the president sent additional American forces to Iraq in the first place.

Democrats also refuse to give Bush any credit for the improved security situation in Iraq, and they argue that since the situation seems more stable there, U.S. troops should be brought home. Combined with the still-growing costs of the war, Democrats believe this message is still politically effective.

...

Democrats continue to put themselves on the wrong side of this issue and give the Republicans a record to run against. They were dead wrong about the effectiveness of the surge and they have attempted to recast the debate about the political problems in Baghdad as a way of covering up how wrong they were. What is important is that we demonstrate that we can militarily defeat the enemy in Iraq. that will make it much less likely that we will face similar enemy strategies in the future. What the Iraqis do with the opportunities we have given them while importance is much less important. The fact is that militarily al Qaeda's Iraq position is in disarray. If Democrats had integrity on the issue they would at least acknowledge that.

While the public has not come around on the issue they will as the success continues, which leaves Democrats still betting against the US and victory for the next election and they should have to pay a price for that. They deserve to lose in a landslide and hopefully they will.