Republicans 'gamble' on Iraq issue

By James Coomarasamy
BBC Washington correspondent

John McCain and Mitt Romney were all smiles before the debate

His poll numbers may be low, his top advisers may have deserted him, but he appears to have a new sense of confidence that his support for the troop surge policy in Iraq will bring rewards.

No, not President George W Bush, but John McCain; the former Republican front-runner in the 2008 presidential race.

As he prepares for his latest "No Surrender" campaign tour, the Arizona senator and decorated war hero has been firing on all cylinders.

At Wednesday's Republican debate in New Hampshire, he was quick to seize on the words of Mitt Romney, the candidate who heads the opinion polls in that state.

When the former Massachusetts governor said the surge was "apparently working", Senator McCain shot back: "Governor, the surge IS working. No, not apparently. It is working."

Mr Romney's more nuanced, conditional response may be closer to the views of the public at large - or, at least, to that section which still supports the war - but John McCain knows that the Republican primary voters, who will pick the nominee, remain loyal to President Bush and his policies.

He is betting his candidacy on it.

Breaking ranks

In Congress, the dynamics are different.

The Republicans there know that their electoral fortunes are no longer linked to a president who is not up for re-election, and growing numbers are wondering whether to break ranks with the White House.

Most 'want Iraq pull-out' Iraq progress reports

Among them, Republican congressman Jim Gerlach. He represents Pennsylvania's sixth district, which comprises the affluent western suburbs of Philadelphia.

Once, this was solid Republican territory, but in last year's mid-term elections he was the only party candidate to retain a seat in the House of Representatives, with just 50.6% of the vote.

During a recent visit there, I found Republican fortunes looking even bleaker.

"I'm a small businessman, and I've always voted Republican," one man told me.

"But not any more. It's 99% down to the war. Everything changed after the war. It's distracted the government from everything."

Commuter Carl Solano said: "I've always been a Bush supporter and I still like some of the things he does. But it's a question of competence.

"He should never have let all those mistakes be made in post-war Iraq."

Gen Petraeus has made a number of statements over the years that have not proved to be factual Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Majority Leader

Like many in the area, he is divided about whether the time is right to withdraw the troops, but Congressman Gerlach seems to be coming round to the belief that it is.

He was among a group of Republicans and Democrats who, without waiting for the Crocker and Petraeus testimonies, signed a letter last week calling for bi-partisan efforts to prepare for a post-surge troop withdrawal plan.

Apparent danger

In general, though, members of Congress are waiting for this week's testimony before they go on the record, even if the views of the top US military commander in Iraq have been widely leaked.

A record 168,000 US troops are now in Iraq after the troop surge

Senior Democrats in the Senate have not been so reticent, though.

While calling him "a good man", majority leader Harry Reid has also called into question the credibility of Gen Petraeus, saying: "He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proved to be factual."

Meanwhile, his deputy, Dick Durbin, accused the administration of manipulating the data in what he called the "Bush-Petraeus report".

Whatever the truth behind these claims, there is a danger in them for the Democrats.

As one Republican official pointed out, the approval rating of Gen Petraeus is four times that of Congress, while the Democratic Party is traditionally vulnerable to accusations that it is not fully behind the troops.

It is a dilemma that will be most keenly felt by the party's presidential candidates.

Presidential veto

All four of them who are serving senators, sit on one of the committees that will hear the testimonies of Gen Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Our activists changed the demographics of Congress in last year's elections and wonder why they haven't seen immediate action to bring troops home Tom Hermann Berks County Democratic Party

That probably explains why they have been reticent about pre-empting next week's events and why one of their competitors, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, has leapt into print, reminding Washington Post readers that he is calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops.

That message will chime with Democratic primary voters.

In the Philadelphia suburbs, I met Tom Hermann, chairman of the Berks County Democratic Party.

Party membership was increasing, he said, but so was grassroots frustration.

"Our activists don't understand," he told me. "They changed the demographics of Congress during last year's elections and wonder why they haven't seen immediate action to bring the troops home."

The simple answer, of course, is that the numbers aren't there.

With the slimmest of majorities, Senate Democrats have so far been unable to muster enough Republican rebels to get the 60 votes they need to pass any kind of legislation.

That may change now, but even 60 votes won't be enough to override a presidential veto. Sixty-seven are needed for that.

Mr Bush is still in charge. For the Democrats, though, passing legislation that is vetoed by the president may be enough to calm their restless base, even if the practical effects are negligible.

---

What is your reaction to this story? Send us your comments using the form below:

Terms & Conditions