McCain Says Anti-Surge Resolution Demoralizes GIs in Iraq

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

WASHINGTON — The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee sought to weaken support for a resolution opposing President Bush’s Iraq war strategy, saying yesterday that proponents are intellectually dishonest.

On the eve before a possible congressional showdown on Iraq strategy, Senator McCain of Arizona contended that the bipartisan proposal amounted to a demoralizing “vote of no confidence” in the American military. The measure, he said, criticizes Mr. Bush’s plan to add 21,500 troops in Iraq yet offers no concrete alternatives.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don’t want to fund it and you don’t want it to go, but yet you don’t take the action necessary to prevent it,” Mr. McCain, who is a 2008 presidential candidate, said.

Senator Feinstein, a Democrat of California, called GOP efforts to block a vote on the resolution “obstructionism.” Neither a Senate majority nor voters, she said, will tolerate such a delaying tactic.

“If we can’t get this done, you can be sure a month or so down the pike, there’s going to be much stronger legislation,” she said.

The Senate, where Democrats hold a 51–49 working majority, has tentatively set an early test vote today on the nonbinding resolution by Senator Warner, a Republican of Virginia.

In a bid to attract more GOP support, Mr. Warner added a provision pledging to protect money for troops in combat.

That compromise drew the ire of some Democrats who said it leaned too far in endorsing the status quo. They want to see binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.

Mr. McCain is sponsoring a resolution expressing support for a troop increase and setting benchmark goals for the Iraqi government. He sought to capitalize on some of the Democratic division.

“I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what’s necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of ‘disapproval,”‘ Mr. McCain said.

“This is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there,” he said, noting the proposal does not seek to cut off money for troops.

A fellow Vietnam veteran, Senator Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, disagreed with Mr. McCain’s assessment. Mr. Hagel said the resolution would make clear the Senate’s belief that Mr. Bush’s policy is misguided.

Mr. Hagel said the proposal also lays out alternatives such as moving troops away from the sectarian violence and closer to the Iraq border to provide “territorial integrity.”

“We can’t change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war,” Mr. Hagel, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008, said.

Republican leaders are working to block a vote on Mr. Warner’s resolution. They insisted that at least two other GOP proposals also be considered — Mr. McCain’s and one focused on maintaining money for troops in the field. Such a strategy could dilute support for Mr. Warner’s measure and make it tougher for any measure to pass.

Democrats want to limit debate to just the Warner and McCain proposals.

Two Republicans who oppose Mr. Warner’s proposal, Senators Graham of South Carolina and Lugar of Indiana, said yesterday that they were uncertain the Warner resolution would get the support of 60 senators.

“Even if there is, it’s nonbinding, and has in my judgment no consequence,” Mr. Lugar said.

Mr. Hagel said Mr. Warner’s resolution strikes a careful balance for a majority of senators who oppose a troop buildup but differ on the appropriate response.

He called Mr. McCain’s proposal meaningless because it offers benchmarks but does not spell out what the American government will do if the Iraqi officials fail to meet them.

“What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?” Mr. Hagel asked. “Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category.”

The resolution debate comes as the White House and congressional Democrats prepared to square off over war spending.

Mr. Bush’s new budget today will ask for $100 billion more for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year — on top of $70 billion already approved by Congress for the current year. The budget will call for $145 billion in war spending for 2008.

The spending request covers Mr. Bush’s new war strategy, including the increase in troops, White House budget director Rob Portman said yesterday.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use