Washington – A measure calling for the phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq died in the Senate today, as Republicans killed a Democratic amendment urging the Bush administration to start the removal of U.S. forces by the end of 2006.
The amendment, co-sponsored and supported by Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, was defeated on a 60 to 39 vote, largely along partisan lines. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colorado voted against the measure.
The non-binding amendment to a military authorization bill urged the White House to start bringing some troops home by next January; to adopt a schedule for further withdrawals next year, and to convene an international summit conference on Iraq.
The contentious debate and vote, following last week’s debate in the House, suggests that the 2006 election may emerge as a referendum on the U.S. war in Iraq, with Republicans pledged to stay the course and Democrats offering change.
Like the Congress, the voters are split on how best to proceed, though polls show that a slim majority appears to support a timetable for withdrawal.
Salazar was an original co-sponsor of the main Democratic amendment, which won the votes of all but a handful of Democratic senators.
A second amendment offered by Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, mandating a complete U.S. pullout by July 1, 2007, fared poorly. It was defeated on an 86 to 13 vote. Both Salazar and Allard voted against it.
“It will probably not be the last time we address this issue,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who opposed both Democratic measures. He called the partisan disagreement over Iraq “the most consequential debate the Senate will engage in this year.
“The Iraqi security forces are clearly unable to maintain security,” McCain acknowledged, and “more brave Americans will lose their lives.”
But Americans must recognize that “it was the U.S. who led the war in Iraq, the U.S. who led the occupation,” said McCain. “Iraq is for us to do to win or lose it is to us that history will look for courage and commitment.”
Democrats, however, said Iraqis have become dependent on the Bush administration’s open-ended military and economic support. The U.S., they said, needs to pressure Iraq’s government to take the necessary steps to heal religious and ethnic divisions and defuse the insurgency.
“It is up to them to seize the opportunity,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan. “We have proven our credibility over 2,500 times because we lost 2,500 of our troops. We have proven our credibility 17,000 times in terms of the number of men and women wounded.”
“Now it is time for Iraqis to prove their credibility, said Levin. “Do they want a civil war? Do they want to engage in more sectarian battles? Or do they want to reach the kind of political accommodations that must be made.”
And Democratic senators, citing the testimony of Gen. George W. Casey and other American military commanders in the Middle East, argued that the huge U.S. occupation is counter-productive, and feeds resentment in Iraq.
“The large presence of American forces in Iraq contributes to the insurgency,” said Kerry. “General Casey has said this war can’t be won militarily. The only way to do this is resolve the political problems that are fueling the insurgency.”
But Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee said Democrats offer “a shameless policy.” Like most of the Republican senators who spoke, Frist said the U.S. should stay in Iraq as long as necessary.
And McCain defended the commitment, if not the aptitude, of Iraq’s leaders. “They are serious,” he said, “they are just not capable.”
A U.S. withdrawal “would risk chaos in Iraq. And chaos in Iraq would mean disaster,” McCain said.
