Ohio's Federal Legislators React to Petraeus and Crocker

Judging by the initial reactions of Ohio members of Congress to the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, we won't be seeing many defections in either direction from the pro-war and anti-war camps. After stating in the spring that their continued support for the surge depended on a showing of success by September, Reps. John Boehner (R-West Chester), Deborah Pryce (R-Upper Arlington), and Pat Tiberi (R-Genoa Township) have all told the Columbus Dispatch that they are persuaded to support Petraeus' recommendations on the basis that there has been some military progress on the ground in Iraq. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Urban) likewise expressed satisfaction with the military progress and also asserts that there has been "some progress . . . socially and politically as well," although where that wishful thinking comes from is not clear.

The same Dispatch article quotes several Ohio Democrats arguing against continuing the surge. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Niles) pointed out that 3,762 Americans have died in the war and said Iraq "is in shambles. ... If the president calls this progress, then he needs to look that word up in the dictionary." Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-St. Clairsville) dismissed as inadequate Petraeus' recommendation of withdrawing only five combat brigades by next summer. "A small reduction in troops may be welcome news for a few troops and their families," he says, "but it does not represent a new direction in our nation's Iraq policy. We need a new direction."

In the Senate, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) told the Dispatch that "the American people have so had it with the war that the American people don't believe anything the Bush administration says," and that Petraeus' report "isn't going to have any impact at all." Sen. George Voinovich (R), however, interprets the Petraeus report as an opportunity for a compromise position somewhere between rapid withdrawal and staying the course. In the past Voinovich has expressed reservations about the war, but has always sided with the White House when Iraq funding is put to a vote. He told the Boston Globe that moderates interested in finding some middle ground "got some good things going for us. The issue is how do you put this thing together in a way where you can come up with a compromise." However, Petraeus in his testimony objected to switching the U.S. troops from their combat role to a strictly training and advisory capacity, which is the central part of the compromise idea put forward by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).

It is clear at this point that the benchmarks set out for rating the success of the surge have not been met, and that the political progress that the surge was supposed to foster has not occurred. What Patreaus essentially argues is that a modest degree of military progress justifies a continuation of the escalation, unmet benchmarks and political stalemate notwithstanding.

The irony, of course, is that we didn't even need to do the surge to know that there would be some military progress. You put in more troops, you get somewhat better results. Where the troops are deployed, insurgent activity goes down. There really was no suspense about that. The question that needed to be answered about the surge was whether political progress would follow. It has not. Nevertheless, the Republican legislators who have supported the war in the past seem likely to continue to do so, and the Democratic legislators who have opposed it will have to carry without significant GOP support.