Republicans betting debate on Iraq works in their favor

Senate Republicans’ decision to engage Democrats in an Iraq debate this week represents a risk that could further tie the party’s political prospects in November to the war.

The change in strategy from defense to offense was so quick that it caught Democrats by surprise Tuesday, after Republicans forced the Senate into a 30-hour debate over the war. GOP senators said the perceived success of the U.S. troop surge shows the war has finally turned a corner.

{mosads}The gamble, however, is that the success of the surge will last at least through November. That’s when several politically vulnerable Republicans face reelection races that could strengthen or tip the Senate’s current 51-49 Democratic majority — a super-thin majority that continues to stymie major legislation.

Democrats say that more boots on the ground in Iraq was not the only goal of the surge, and they are quick to point out that the political situation has yet to change.

“I think they’re really in a box,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.). “They’ve decided that the best defense is offense — but unfortunately, this isn’t a political game. We have thousands of people losing their lives and billions of dollars being spent.”

Republicans are making the most of the rare opportunity. Only a year ago, prominent Republicans such as Sen. John Warner (Va.) were clashing openly with the White House over the war’s pace and policies.

“The Democrats are sort of in denial about the fact that things have dramatically improved in Iraq both on the military-security side and on the political side,” said Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) “It’s almost as if they’re sorry that things have gotten better. I think the American people are not sorry that things have gotten better and are pleased that we are succeeding.”

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee also suggested the new strategy was refreshing for a party tired of being on the defensive for so long over Iraq. He called the new strategy “typical of what you’re going to see from Republican senators this year.”

“We’re going to be on the offensive. If the issue is Iraq, we’re ready to talk about it. If the issue is housing, we’ll have a housing proposal,” he said. “What I think is a vulnerability is not to have a clear position on it, and to not be willing to talk about it.”

But the Republican risks are stark: Among the November reelection contests are those of four particularly vulnerable Republicans: Susan Collins of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon.{mospagebreak}

And perhaps the clearest, most prominent example is the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. A consistent war supporter, McCain this week went so far as to tell reporters that if the surge’s success starts to reverse itself, he’ll lose the race. McCain retracted the remark, but acknowledged his political fate is particularly tied to the surge’s continued success.

McCain’s fellow Republican from Arizona, Minority Whip Jon Kyl, said the party is confident that voters will reward them if the surge continues to stabilize Iraq.

“We have to win the war, and the surge is what it takes to win the war,” Kyl said. “If that rebounds to the benefit of the people who support it, that’s fine. If it doesn’t, that’s the way it goes. But winning the war is the key thing.”

{mosads}Collins, Coleman, Sununu and Smith all toed the Republican line in its strategy this week, but some of them have started taking nuanced positions. Collins, for example, has co-sponsored a bill with Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska that would change the U.S. military’s mission in Iraq from a lead combat role into counter-terrorism, border security, U.S. troop protection and the preparation of Iraqi troops.

“It is Sen. Collins’s hope that the Senate will finally be allowed to debate and vote on proposals like the Nelson-Collins bill that offer a bipartisan way forward on Iraq,” said Collins spokeswoman Jen Burita.

Yet another political factor that Republicans can’t control: the Iraqi government itself, which Nelson said hasn’t properly used the “breathing room” created by the surge’s success. Even if Iraq continues to become more and more stable under the U.S. surge strategy, the country’s slow-moving government could still frustrate Republicans’ political chances.

“That could be a big issue in the campaigns,” Nelson said. “The whole idea of the surge was to give the government breathing room to accomplish its benchmarks. But it seems incapable of responding, and we’ve got a cycle of dependency going on here that somehow has to be broken.”

Nelson’s point — that there are different ways to define success — is also likely to find its way into the fall campaign of Democratic presidential candidates, whether Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois or Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“The surge was meant to not only have security, but produce reconciliation and political accommodation, and we virtually haven’t had that,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), an Obama supporter. “So our troops are being held hostage to Iraqi politicians while they try to make up their minds about the future of the country. That’s unacceptable.”

Stabenow also notes that the majority of voters still oppose long-term continuation of the war — suggesting that it is only a matter of time before the surge becomes unsustainable and the GOP loses its gamble.

“The majority of the American people want a change in strategy in Iraq, but to keep the surge working you have to keep more troops there,” she said. “But if it continues to work and political stability is increasing, in theory they should be bringing people home.”

 Manu Raju contributed to this article.