Senate GOP leaders block Webb dwell-time plan

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jul 11, 2007 14:12:40 EDT

A Senate proposal to guarantee combat troops more time at home was derailed Wednesday by a procedural roadblock thrown by Republicans.

Fifty-six senators supported the plan offered by two military veterans — Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. — that would promise service members returning from deployment as much time at home as they had spent in a combat zone, unless they volunteer to return early.

Under normal circumstances, 56 votes would have been enough for the measure to pass. But the Senate’s debate over Iraq policy during consideration of the $648 billion defense policy bill for 2008 is not normal, because Republican leaders have vowed to use procedural moves to stop Democrats from changing the Bush administration’s Iraq strategy.

With Republicans threatening endless debate, known in legislative terms as a filibuster, supporters of the Webb-Hagel amendment needed to muster 60 votes to stop the talking and bring the plan to a vote. They fell four votes short.

Webb said he was disappointed but won’t give up. “We are going to continue to focus on this,” he said.

The intent of the guaranteed time at home, known as “dwell time,” is “to protect our troops,” he said.

Hagel also vowed to try again with a modified amendment. “If we cannot get this right, I am not sure what we can do,” he said.

Opponents said the dwell-time plan would have Congress making decisions that are best left to the president and military commanders.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the amendment would have created a “congressionally mandated fence around every service member.”

“This certainly is without precedent,” McCain said. “I think it would be bad congressional micromanagement” and would have “immediate, adverse effects” on Iraq operations.

“If you want to take care of the troops, let them win,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services military personnel subcommittee.

Sen. Barbara Milkuski, D-Md., said she was disappointed in the Senate for blocking a vote on an amendment aimed at supporting troops and their families, especially one sponsored by two Vietnam combat veterans whose views on personnel issues traditionally would be given great weight because “they know the stresses of war.”

Work on the defense bill continues, with other Iraq-related amendments expected on setting a withdrawal date for U.S. combat troops and ordering a change in the missions assigned to those troops.

Republican leaders intend to use the same tactic of potentially unending debate, which will continue to force Democrats to try and muster 60 votes to stop them. Falling short on the less-controversial deployment issue is believed to be a sign that 60 votes will not be found for other Iraq amendments opposed by the Bush administration.

Give em hell, Hagel

"You can't govern without Congress," Hagel tells White House

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), one of President Bush's toughest critics on the handling of the Iraq war, told the White House Friday that it "can't govern without Congress."

Hagel said he was "confounded" by the administration saying that it would forge ahead with its plan to add more troops, even if Congress expresses its disapproval with such a strategy.

"To say that the president is not going to listen to the Congress is astounding," Hagel said on NBC's "Today" show. "It's astounding. I've never heard a president say that."

The lawmaker pointed out that Congress is a co-equal branch of the government and a partner of the president.

"He certainly has powers of commander in chief, certain powers," the lawmaker added. "We do as well."

Hagel is the co-sponsor of a resolution that would reject the surge proposal. The non-binding measure passed the Foreign Relations Committee Wednesday. On Friday, the lawmaker again strongly criticized the surge plan.

"Are we going to just blindly continue to feed more troops into this situation, a sectarian civil war that American troops cannot win? We put these young men and women in situations where they can't win," he said.

Bush addressed Congress's concerns of his new plan Friday, following the unanimous Senate confirmation of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus as the new commander of the multinational forces in Iraq.

"I know there is skepticism and pessimism, and that some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work," Bush told reporters. "And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work."

Hagel sees the resolution as a first step in a beginning debate on Iraq, adding that there would be many opportunities to address the issue, including the appropriations process.

- Klaus Marre

Leaving Iraq, Honorably

Leaving Iraq, Honorably

By Chuck Hagel
Sunday, November 26, 2006

There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans.

Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government.

It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America's options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.

What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest -- without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.

We are a long way from a sustained peaceful resolution to the anarchy in Iraq. But this latest set of events is moving the Middle East in the only direction it can go with any hope of lasting progress and peace. The movement will be imperfect, stuttering and difficult.

America finds itself in a dangerous and isolated position in the world. We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. Unfortunately, that perception is gaining credibility in the Muslim world and for many years will complicate America's global credibility, purpose and leadership. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed as the world seeks a new geopolitical, trade and economic center that will accommodate the interests of billions of people over the next 25 years. The world will continue to require realistic, clear-headed American leadership -- not an American divine mission.

The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq.

We are destroying our force structure, which took 30 years to build. We've been funding this war dishonestly, mainly through supplemental appropriations, which minimizes responsible congressional oversight and allows the administration to duck tough questions in defending its policies. Congress has abdicated its oversight responsibility in the past four years.

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission gives the president a new opportunity to form a bipartisan consensus to get out of Iraq. If the president fails to build a bipartisan foundation for an exit strategy, America will pay a high price for this blunder -- one that we will have difficulty recovering from in the years ahead.

To squander this moment would be to squander future possibilities for the Middle East and the world. That is what is at stake over the next few months.

The writer is a Republican senator from Nebraska.