Testing testimony

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, surprised no one. Despite that, however, his testimony has changed the political calculus on the war. Petraeus said that the “surge” was working and that improved security would allow thousands of American troops to start being deployed out of Iraq soon, with a return to pre-surge numbers by next summer.

Perhaps more effective than anything was his declaration that the report was his own, not vetted or approved in advance by the White House — the public trusts military commanders to handle the war as necessary far more than it trusts either President Bush or Congress.

This works for the administration. Bush wants to stay the course in Iraq, whereas the majority Democrats in Congress want that course changed and American armed forces out quickly. Having already endorsed the general’s timetable, Bush will probably press it home in a prime-time speech Thursday evening.

Congressional Democrats and skeptical Republicans may allow this timetable, but they may not be able to stop it. They are working feverishly now to find a plan that will garner sufficient votes to force Bush’s hand on a plan that accelerates withdrawal.

How many troops are brought home, and how soon, remains to be seen and will depend on whether public opposition to the war weakens in light of Petraeus’s testimony and evidence of progress in Iraq.

This plays into the electoral calculations of every member of Congress.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) has called for primary challenges against those of her Democratic colleagues who are insufficiently opposed to the war. Many Republicans, particularly vulnerable ones such as Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.), feel the need to express serious doubts about staying the course. He asked Petraeus for a long-term outlook in Iraq, and added, “The American people have to have a clearer sense of the light at the end of the tunnel.”

Petraeus’s upbeat depiction of progress in Iraq made a change of policy less likely. This makes it harder for Democrats to end the war they oppose. It also makes it harder for Republicans to abandon their support for a policy about which they have profound misgivings.

If the war goes better as 2007 slides into 2008, but not so much better that the public warms to it, congressional Republicans would be caught between Iraq and a hard place. Thus, the congressional majority’s continued inability to change war policy might help them in their effort to inflict further ballot-box pain on the hurting GOP.