GOP centrists mulled Iraq options over recess

Republicans skeptical of the Iraq troop surge urged patience in their districts over the August recess, saying they will reserve judgment until the White House releases its progress report, prepared by Gen. David Petraeus, during the week of Sept. 10.

In conversations with editorial boards, reporters and constituents, GOP moderates indicated that the report would be a crucial factor in determining what action Congress should take this fall.  

{mosads}Rep. Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.) told a group of constituents at a town hall that the report would shift the focus in Congress and draw more support for a bill that he has co-sponsored based on the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report. Petraeus will testify on the Hill on Sept. 10 and 11, and the report is due no later than Sept. 15.

“I think Sept. 15 is going to be a key date. I think you are going to see the focus on developing an exit strategy, fulfilling our mission and changing that mission … pursuant to the Baker-Hamilton report,” Ramstad said.

The Ramstad bill would implement the recommendations made by the bipartisan report authored by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, including a drawdown of U.S. troops by 2008 and increased diplomatic offensives with Iraq’s neighbors.  

When he asked the audience what they thought about the Baker-Hamilton report, lukewarm mumbles of “it’s better than what we have” could be heard from several individuals.

Ramstad was one of the 10 moderate GOP lawmakers who expressed their frustration to the president in a March meeting at the White House. Most were among the 17 GOP lawmakers who voted to oppose President Bush’s plan to send a surge of over 20,000 additional troops into Iraq in February.

For his part, Rep. Phil English  (R-Pa.) reiterated his stance that a timetable for withdrawal was not appropriate, and that he preferred a gradual withdrawal that would allow Iraqis to slowly take the reins of their developing government.

“We need a system set up in Iraq to rotate troops regularly between deployments,” English told the Leader Times of Kittanning, Pa.

English faces challenges from the left and right in 2008, with candidates on both sides attacking his assessment of the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), a staunch conservative who visited Afghanistan over the recess, told the Spartanburg Herald-Journal that the goal of the war has changed since 2003, with stability taking precedent over everything else.

“Early on, there was some optimism that we could establish some constitutional government in Iraq that looked like the U.S.,” Inglis said. “Now the thought is a stable Iraq equals success, and it might look quite different from the United States.
Every once in a while, I think the president dials that goal back up to Iraq looking like the United States. But most of us would accept far less, which is stability in Iraq.”

Some lawmakers faced skeptical crowds. Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) endured an avalanche of criticism and jeers after suggesting that lawmakers should wait on the Petraeus report when he addressed the anti-war group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq last week.

Rep. James Walsh (R-N.Y.) told a group of voters assembled in Marcellus, N.Y., that a political solution is the only way the war would be resolved.

“War is hell — somebody said that a long time ago, and it’s true,” Walsh said.