With General Petraeus set to discuss the surge strategy in Iraq, it is interesting to see how the start of the surge has been, erm pushed back. In an interview yesterday with Hugh Hewitt, Gen. Petraeus said:

we have been surging our forces during that time [since he was named Commander on February 10]. We have added five Army brigade combat teams, two Marine battalions, and a Marine expeditionary unit, and some enablers, as they’re called. And over the last month, that surge of forces has turned into a surge of offensive operations. . . .

This would establish mid-February as the start of the Surge. This is confirmed in this news report, based on a June 15, 2007 Pentagon report to Congress:

The security operation was launched Feb. 14 and is still unfolding as the last of an additional 28,000 or so U.S. forces are getting into position in and around the Iraqi capital. The Pentagon is required by Congress to provide its initial assessment of the operation in July, and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said he will report in September.

(Emphasis supplied.) So I think it is fair to say the Surge commenced in mid-February and became fully equipped and staffed by June. The question is do the results from February to June count? WaPo's Bob Kagan, of the Surging Kagan family, (h/t atrios), said yes in March:

Via Crooks and Liars and U.S.A. Today:

The Bush administration announced a new tool Tuesday to freeze financial assets of those who want to destabilize Iraq.

President Bush unveiled a new executive order that allows the administration to block bank accounts and any other financial assets that might be found in this country belonging to people, companies or groups that the United States deems are working to threaten stability in Iraq.

Is this really necessary?

The administration already has tools to clamp down financially on people, companies and groups that seek to bankroll terrorist activities or help funds specific terror groups, such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. The United States also has financial sanctions against countries accused of fostering terrorism, such as Iran.

I love the line about "threatening stability" in Iraq. As if there's any stability left to threaten.

As I mentioned yesterday, the idea that in September the report of General David Petraeus on the Surge will weaken Godot Republican resolve on following Bush's Iraq Debacle policy is simply unrealistic. Glenn Greenwald catches Gen. Petraeus interviewed by Hugh Hewitt of all people:

HH: Now you’re due to make a report back in September, I don’t know if it’s early, mid or late September, General Petraeus, is that enough time to really get a fix on how the surge is progressing? DP: Well, I have always said that we will have a sense by that time of basically, of how things are going, have we been able to achieve progress on the ground, where have their been shortfalls, and so forth. And I think that is a reasonable amount of time to have had all the forces on the ground, again, for about three months, to have that kind of sense. . . .

Does anyone believe that a proud soldier like Petraeus will provide a sense that he can't succeed? Of course he will not. Heck, if he would, would you really want him to be leading the forces? Unlike Glenn, I am not as skeptical of Petraeus' intentions; I just realize he is human and the commander of the operation is not going to be the one to declare his operation a failure. More.

Impeachment X KagroX writes a relatively balanced piece on defunding:

Defunding presents a more muddied picture. Savage notes:

Prompted in part by Cheney, the Bush administration has championed an aggressive view of executive power under which Congress cannot restrict the commander in chief's options, short of cutting off funds for the troops. This constitutional interpretation, which is disputed by many legal scholars, has surfaced repeatedly in recent months.

I think this presents an accurate picture of what's been said on the record -- that is, that even lunatics like Cheney, Addington and Yoo say in public that defunding the war ends it. . . .

Interestingly, Kagro is skeptical:

It's taking it with a large grain of salt. Like I said, I make no objection to your preferred method, and would vote (or not) with you when the time comes.

Funny how Kagro has no salt available when it comes to the possibility of removing Bush and Cheney even though that requires 17 Republican Senators voting for removal. More.

So what should Democrats do now? Let me be frank -the events of the last days on the Levin-Reed Amendment was about pressuring Godot Republicans to break with Bush's Iraq Debacle. After the talk of how Sens. Warner, Lugar, Voinovich, etc. were breaking with Bush's Iraq Debacle it was of course proven to be an absolute crock. These Republicans will never break with Bush's Iraq Debacle.

Some believe that September will be the moment, after General Petraeus speaks. This is delusion. What do folks think Petraeus is going to say? Petraeus will STIFFEN Republican resolve, not weaken it.

So what to do? If you accept, as I do, that the Godot Republicans will never break with Bush, then it seems to me that the only plausible approaches to ending the Iraq Debacle require reliance on solely Democratic votes. And that means, yes, exercising the NOT spending power after a date certain. More.

The Senate is voting on cloture (to end debate) on the Levin/Reed Amendment to the defense authorization funding bill.

You can watch on C-Span.

The vote is on whether to advance the Amendment, which requires reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq beginning in 120 days.

No surprise, Lieberman voted with the Republicans.

Yeas 52, Nays 47. Motion is not agreed to.( Sens. Collins, Smith, Hagel and Snowe voted with Democrats.)

Sen. Harry Reed is making a motion now to reconsider the vote (with a speech.)

More...

DemfromCt wrote a two-part post title the "Politics of Iraq", here and here that I think completely misreads the situation. Dem writes:

Toothless legislation attracts votes, but doesn't get the job done. Legislation with teeth doesn't attract a consensus or a working majority (at this time) because there isn't one in Congress. . . . The urgency to adjust the status quo outweighs the loyalty to the base, and far outweighs loyalty to an unpopular President, that GOP congress critters feel. The country thinks Congress is dithering. Explaining it away as "I have to keep my shrinking Republican base happy, even though they are unrealistic about the war because Fox News, Joe Lieberman and I don't tell the truth about what's happening there" is not going to fly. . . . Sure, the votes aren't there yet, but everyone in Washington in this kabuki show knows that's coming. . . . It's the GOP's war, and it's Bush's war. If they don't face up to that reality, and at least start preparing their base for the inevitable, they run the risk that 2008 will turn out to be 2006 on steroids. . . .

This, it seems to me, misses entirely the dynamic that is developing. It is the Democratic Congress whose approvals are falling, as clammyc notes. The GOP is much where they were in 2006. The Dems have dropped significantly from where they were. And the danger is of Dems offering safe harbor to those Republicans vulnerable on Iraq. More.

I have been tough on Jim Webb due to his refusal to consider using the Spending Power to end the Iraq Debacle and I will continue to be, but one thing I always have believed is that Jim Webb, like Wes Clark, conveys confidence, even arrogance, when discussing national security issues that; something Democrats desperately need as a political matter. Webb does not cower to the nonsense spewed by Republicans with their talking points. Case in point:

Rudy Giuliani expressed a view common to the GOP:

I think that if we've learned any lessons from the history of the 20th century, one of the lessons we should learn is stop trying to psychoanalyze people and take them at their word. If we had taken Hitler at his word, Stalin at his word, I think we would have made much sounder decisions and saved a lot more lives.

An Al Qaida in Iraq leader said:

Abu Sarhan's views suggest[] a more restrained view of the United States, which he considers an occupier but one that should not leave immediately. . . . "The real enemy for the resistance is Iran and those working for Iran," he went on. "Because Iran has a feud which goes back thousands of years with the people of Iraq and the government of Iraq."

(Emphasis supplied.) Today, a Maliki lieutenant said:

[T]he U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think if we take these statements at face value, staying in Iraq means staying mired in an intractable and increasingly vicious sectarian civil war. What do you think Rudy?

Iraqi PM Maliki says that the US can leave now as far as he is concerned:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training. The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.

Even better is this from one of Maliki's lieutenants:

[O]ne of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq.

There seems to be no one but Bush, the GOP and the Neocons who want the US in Iraq. Oh, and Al Qaida.

From Sargent:

Senator Reid Appreciate these two former Chairmen coming forward and expressing their clear discontent with the Administration’s policies in Iraq.

They clearly recognize there is no purely military solution in Iraq and that the war, on its current course, is making this nation less secure.

But they put a lot of faith in the President that he will voluntarily change course and voluntarily begin to reduce the large U.S. combat footprint in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Senator Reid is not as confident in the President’s willingness to change course voluntarily. In the fifth year of the war, we need strong legislation that compels the President to change course, change the mission, and begin the reduction of U.S. troops. That’s what Reed/Levin does. It is binding legislation, and that is the approach he prefers.

But what if Warner-Lugar was binding?

This is interesting:

One of the main elements of [Warner-Lugar] amendment, which was filed shortly after noon today, would require the president to seek a new rationale for the war authorization by the time Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, delivers a report in September on the progress of the troop buildup. The measure also would require the president to review and update the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq no later than Sept. 4. “Many of the conditions and motivations that existed when we authorized force almost five years ago no longer exist or are irrelevant to our current situation,” Mr. Lugar said. He went on, saying the 2002 war authorization is “obsolete and requires revision.”

Think Republicans will embrace this? Having to vote a NEW war authorization? One Democrats will vote against almost uniformly?

At first blush, I think I am going to embrace this idea requiring from Bush a new war authorization. I wonder what Warner and Lugar imagine would be the upshot if continuing the war was NOT authorized?