A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

Evidently, when it comes to bringing a halt to the reconstruction effort in Iraq, it is more than a little difficult for opponents like John Murtha to follow through on their plans:

The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment.

But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.

"If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter," declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

Ah, those Blue Dog Democrats. An inconvenient lot for people like Murtha, no?

Murtha's credentials as a Marine combat veteran, a critic of the war and close ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) were supposed to make him an unassailable spokesman for Democratic war policy. Instead, he has become a lightning rod for criticism from Republicans and members of his own party.

As no biographic ought to be allowed to mask the details of a bad plan, precisely no one should be surprised by this.

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.

"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.

About time. And incidentally, did no one else see this kind of proposal coming? Murtha has all but telegraphed his intentions.

The story of Murtha's star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party's deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.

Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murtha's once promising strategy was in tatters.

Tom Andrews, a former House member and antiwar activist who helped Murtha with his Internet rollout, fumed: "The issue to me is, what is the state of the backbone of the Democratic Party? How will they respond to this counterattack? Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats aren't even on the field."

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Republicans are throwing touchdown passes because Democrats are following a flawed game strategy. But, you know, whatever.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida Democrat and deputy whip, said party leaders are working on several Iraq proposals and that Murtha's may survive. Finding consensus will be difficult but not impossible, she said. "This is a multi-step process," she cautioned. "At least we're debating the topic, not blindly following the president."

Be it noted: Blindly following Murtha is better than blindly following the President. I'm not in favor of blindly following anyone, of course, but someone ought to ask Ms. Wasserman-Schultz how her plan is going so far.

Megan Grote, Murtha's spokeswoman, said the congressman will not discuss Iraq policy until a news conference scheduled for the end of the week.

Visions of Republican touchdown passes dance in Tom Andrews's head.

The strategy [Murtha] would craft was designed to calm the nerves of the party's conservatives by fully funding the war, while placating the antiwar left by attaching so many strings to those funds that the president would not be able to deploy all the 21,500 additional combat troops he wanted.

This would presume that "the party's conservatives" are fools who can't see through Murtha's plan and divine his main purpose. A failed gamble, if ever there was one.

To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a year's rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training.

Pelosi endorsed the plan in concept but never the details. The plan surfaced Feb. 15 in an unorthodox Murtha appearance on MoveCongress.org, an antiwar Web site affiliated with the liberal activists of MoveOn.org.

It came the day before the House voted on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's additional troop deployments that Democratic leaders had been touting as a major rebuke. Murtha dismissed that vote as he promoted his coming plans regarding the war spending bill. "This vote will be the most important vote in changing the direction on this war," he said of his proposal. "This vote will limit the options of the president and should stop the surge."

To many Democrats, that was not only impolitic, it was disloyal.

"He stepped all over Speaker Pelosi's message of support for the troops," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.). "That was not team play, to put it mildly."

Cue Debbie Wasserman-Schultz complaining about "blindly following" the Speaker. And why not? Murtha needs all the allies he can get at this point.

Even after that Web appearance, some senior Democratic aides say Murtha might well have been able to save his plan if he had quickly laid it out before the Democratic caucus and marshaled Democratic leaders behind a defense. Instead, the House recessed for a week, Murtha disappeared from the media, and Democratic leaders were silent, saying they could not discuss Iraq legislation because no real plan existed.

In the face of an unanswered Republican assault, the Democratic rank-and-file cracked -- on the left and the right.

"While we're all for troop readiness, we're all for them having all the equipment they want," Matheson, the Utah Democrat, said, "I'd be very concerned about doing anything that would hamstring resources and commanders on the ground."

Indeed, Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war.

"Oversight hearings! We promise you oversight hearings!" Behold the new majority's promise to its base. I feel a Vicious Rant coming on. Followed, of course, by an Important Action Alert.

Developing. I suppose that within short order, the Democratic Leadership will have some sort of "nice defense appropriations subcommittee you have there . . . be a shame if anything were to happen to it" meeting with Murtha to get him to straighten up and fly right. But only the truly blind fail to see what is going on here: Democrats are overreaching and paying for it. Republicans now clearly have an opening to make "slow-bleed" the most repulsive phrase in the 2007 Dictionary of American Politics. And in doing so, they will buy time for a surge and the implementation of General Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy to perhaps work in Iraq.

Good politics and good policy. I like that combination. Let's give it a shot, shall we?