Front Row: Three Iraq debates, seen and unseen

by Doyle McManus

Gen. David H. Petraeus is on his way back to Baghdad, where he jokes he’ll be more comfortable than he was sitting in hard-backed chairs for two days testifying to four different committees of Congress.

But the debate over U.S. strategy in Iraq continues. Actually, it’s three debates, each with a different focus--one in Congress, one in the nation at large, and one within the military itself. Of the three, the debate in Congress is going to get most of the attention over the next two weeks, but it’s likely to be the least consequential.

The most important debate, instead, is the one that’s least visible--the argument inside the U.S. military. Here’s what I mean:

The Democratic majority in Congress wants to pass legislation to force President Bush to begin winding down the war faster than he wants to. Bush and Petraeus say they want to hand responsibility to the Iraqi army, but slowly, because the army still isn’t ready. Their strategy would likely keep more than 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through the end of Bush’s presidency in January 2009 - down from more than 160,000 now, but still a substantial force.

Democrats want to speed up that timetable, but they don’t have the votes to do it.

Passing major legislation in the Senate requires a 60-vote majority; passing a bill over a veto from the president requires 67. Democrats and their moderate Republican allies have a shot at passing measures that would limit Bush’s ability to keep U.S. forces in combat at the current level, but White House aides have said Bush would veto any such bill.

The result: Sound and fury, but no meaningful constraint on Bush’s plan.

Why don’t the Democrats simply refuse to fund for the war? Again, the votes aren’t there. An abrupt halt to funding would be a brute-force approach to changing U.S. policy - effective but ugly, and unpredictable in its consequences in both Iraq and the United States. Many Democrats are unwilling to face the charge that they are refusing to support troops in the battlefield. Some also acknowledge that they want next year’s election to be about an unpopular Republican war, not about the messy consequences of a Democratic funding squeeze.

Still, the debate in Congress does mirror a deeper debate in the country: How much more blood are Americans willing to sacrifice to avoid the possibility of even greater catastrophe in Iraq and the oil-rich region that surrounds it?

That question was on the table for all 16 hours of Gen. Petraeus’s hearings, but it was posed most explicitly, on the afternoon of his second day in the chair, by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“Let's just put on the table as honestly as we can, what lies ahead for the American people and the U.S. military if we continue to stay in Iraq,” Graham said. He asked Petraeus how many troops were being killed each month. At least 60, the general replied.

“My question for you, is it worth it to us?” Graham asked.

“Yes, sir,” Petraeus said.

“So you're saying to the Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now to July, that we're going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it's all said and done, we'll still have 100,000 people there. You believe it's worth it in terms of our national security interest to pay that price?” Graham asked.

“Sir, I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't have made the recommendations that I have made if I did not believe that,” Petraeus replied.

That painful question about costs and benefits is being debated not only in Congress and the public, but also within the nation’s military, which is paying the greatest price by far.

The “surge” of troops in Iraq is being brought to its scheduled end next year in part because military leaders were unwilling to extend troops’ combat tours from 15 months to 18 months. Some civilian officials wanted to send more troops to Iraq, not fewer. But the military said the troops weren’t there.

At least some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to begin pulling U.S. troops out of combat and turn responsibility over to Iraqis faster than Petraeus was willing, officials said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, initially a skeptic on how successful a “surge” could be, decided to give Petraeus the benefit of the doubt. The general now has six more months to show that his strategy, which now focuses partly on finding allies among local militias in Iraq’s divided regions, can quell sectarian violence.

When Petraeus comes back next March to present the results, his most important test may not be in Congress, where the battle lines are already firm, nor in the White House, where Bush has been one of the general’s most steadfast supporters.

Instead, his toughest job may be in the Pentagon, persuading Gates and the service chiefs - who remained quiet this round, but barely - that the time for an exit strategy has not yet come.

Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, has covered national politics and world affairs for 32 years. A former foreign correspondent in Europe and the Middle East, he has reported from more than 60 countries. He has covered every presidential election since 1984 and was a White House correspondent during the Bill Clinton administration.