Not Much Separates Anti-Surge Resolutions --Just Republican Votes

Jan. 25, 2007 — -- A resolution that would register deep disapproval of President Bush's plan to surge troops into Iraq cleared a hurdle in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Wednesday. But it did not gain as much support from Republicans as expected, even though most Republicans on the committee were less than enthusiastic about Bush's new strategy.

This is the United States Senate, after all. Words count here. And so do impressions.

The resolution that passed through the committee says any escalation in Iraq is "against the national interest." It passed 12 to 9 out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with unanimous Democratic support, but the resolution's author, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., was the only Republican to support it in the committee vote.

"I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this," Hagel said at the hearing. "What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher for us having to take a tough vote and express ourselves and have the courage to step up, than what we're asking our young men and women do? I don't think so."

Strong words like that, though coming from a Republican like Hagel, may be what eventually scuttle his resolution. Many Republicans seem to be against the surge. But only Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, has signed on with Hagel.

The poor showing among Foreign Relations Committee Republicans indicates that another resolution, officially introduced on the Senate floor late Wednesday afternoon, and described as less caustic and partisan by Republicans, may be a viable alternative to the Hagel resolution.

The biggest difference is that Hagel's resolution calls any increase in troop levels "not in the national interest." The alternative resolution is a bit more deferential to the White House by simply saying that the Senate "disagrees" with the surge.

But that less critical resolution, authored by Republicans John Warner, R-Va., Susan Collins, R-Maine, Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Democrat Ben Nelson, D-Neb., is very similar to the Hagel resolution. Both call for Iraqi politicians to make "political compromises." Both list maintaining Iraq's "territorial integrity" as a major element of U.S. strategy there.

Hagel's says the U.S. should engage the "Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq." Warner's only wants "select nations in the Middle East" involved.

The word "escalating" was replaced with the word "increasing" in both bills to woo skittish Republican votes.

Democrats don't seem to care which resolution finally gets an up or down vote in the Senate, as long as one of the two does. Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., indicated he would support some variation of the Warner resolution. To him, the important thing is to send the president a message.

Biden said, "We need to let the president know, in a bipartisan way, 'Mr. President, you're making a mistake."

Hagel himself called the Warner resolution "responsible." The Hagel resolution, which passed out of the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, is unlikely to make it to the Senate floor before midweek next week, but is expected to have a vote on the Senate floor by the end of the month. The Warner resolution is expected to be offered as a substitute to Hagel's.

Either way, rejecting the Hagel proposal, even though it is very similar to Warner's, allows Republicans who oppose the surge -- as most on the Foreign Relations Committee do -- to reject the idea of the surge while still dismissing something that has been labeled "partisan."

Warner noted the similarities between the bills Wednesday night, saying, "They do track in many respects the provisions in the Biden-Levin-Hagel resolution. But when that first came out, so much of the rhetoric surrounding that resolution ... was disturbing to many people."

Most Republicans on the committee, after all, are skeptical of the surge, but still opposed the Hagel resolution, which is also offered by Snowe, Biden, and Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., for instance, the ranking Republican on the committee, said that the resolution was inadequate because it only opposes the surge and does not represent the "breadth of opinions" in the Senate on the issue.

Lugar pointed out the gamut of ideas in Congress, from the opinion that the surge is too small to the opinion that troops should be pulled out of Iraq immediately.

"I do not think this resolution will reveal the level of discomfort with the president's plan," Lugar said. "It's likely to reveal far less discomfort than exists because some senators will vote against it based on its format."

While Lugar is unlikely to support either resolution, as many as a dozen other Republicans could support Warner's -- including Hagel, who, while not officially supporting it, on Wednesday called Warner's resolution "responsible." The difference for them may be a smoke screen.

Labeling the Hagel bill partisan allows them to support the more reasonable alternative, even though the alternative is not much different.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., for instance, is a co-sponsor of the Warner bill, but still said he would work on Hagel's bill to take some of the partisanship out of it and amend it on the Senate floor.

Another Republican, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has not ruled out supporting the Warner resolution, but she said this about Hagel's: "What is the message that is sent? If the message that is sent is that Congress is confused or that this is the president's war ... America loses in that."

Wednesday's markup of the Hagel bill also revealed divisions among Democrats. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., tried, on Jan. 16, to offer an amendment that would add a binding troop cap --137,500 -- to the number of troops in Iraq.

Under Dodd's amendment, which failed to pass, the president would have to seek a new authorization from Congress to add to that level. Dodd said the non-binding resolution should have teeth.

Biden said it was not workable and said to Dodd, "You're right, kids are dying over there, but nothing in this amendment is going to stop that." He also complained that troop caps do not mandate withdrawal, implying the status quo is OK.

Biden wants to pass the non-binding resolution, register support, and then move on to find a binding way to affect policy.

Ardent war critic Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., suggested pulling all the troops and funding from Iraq. But he wants the Democrats who supported the Iraq war to take some of the blame for it.

"I am glad we are in the majority again, but we were in the majority when this war was authorized," Feingold said. "It is time to stop the needless deaths of Americans in Iraq."