Who should be deciding U.S. policy on Iraq?

WASHINGTON — When President Bush addresses the nation tonight, he is expected to endorse a version of what's come to be known on Capitol Hill as the Petraeus Report.

That strategy, set out by Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker this week, recommends a drawdown by July to roughly the same number of combat troops that were in Iraq in January, before the president added 30,000 soldiers.

But a growing number of lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, are chafing at the recommendation and its source.

Generals, no matter how respected, shouldn't set U.S. policy, they say. Congress should, in a bipartisan way.

"By not having a bipartisan approach, Congress has defaulted and let the whole tone of this debate be set by a military man's report," said Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a former three-star admiral and adviser in the Clinton administration. "Regardless of one's position on the war, it's profoundly dangerous to have the military make decisions on war and peace, and to some extent, that's what we've done."

The test of whether Congress can find common ground on the war comes next week, when the Senate takes up the defense-authorization bill for fiscal year 2008.

Democratic leaders have decided to abandon their aggressive course and pursue modest bipartisan measures in an effort to break the Republicans' grip on the direction of war policy. Standing against them will be Bush, who hopes to ease concerns that his Iraq strategy will lead to an open-ended military commitment.

Both efforts share a single target: Senate Republican moderates whose votes are needed for Democrats to muster the 60 votes necessary to overcome a GOP filibuster. If enough Republicans sign on to a compromise measure, Democrats finally could pass legislation aimed at changing the direction of the war.

"It is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to the American people. And I hope this is unacceptable to Senate Republicans," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday. "Supporting a plan that keeps at least 130,000 troops in Iraq for what could be years to come is not a change in mission."

At least 10 Senate Republicans have questioned Bush's Iraq strategy openly, even as they remain reluctant to help Democrats change it. GOP war critics said they are detecting a shift — albeit a slight one — toward outright dissent, as colleagues digest the prospect of a maintaining a large U.S. presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., who has been virtually silent on the war, startled colleagues on the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday with criticisms of the administration and a call for "a policy that the majority of Americans will support."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Dole's comments reveal a building frustration among otherwise loyal Republicans.

"I think Republicans, like a lot of Americans, are worried about how things are going," Sessions said. "... They don't believe everything that comes out of the State Department or the Pentagon or the White House. They're thinking critically."

Having lost control of Congress in November, the GOP faces potentially deeper losses in 2008. They must defend 22 Senate seats, including at least seven in swing states, where the war is unpopular.

"I wouldn't want to be the party that says we're going to have 130,000 troops from July on," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Reid abruptly pulled the defense-authorization bill from the floor in July after he failed to add an amendment that would have imposed timetables for the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq. Democratic leaders this time will focus on four to six amendments they believe could get the 60 votes needed for passage.

Among the first will be a revised version of legislation that would ensure that troops returning from Iraq be granted a home leave at least as long as their last deployment before returning to battle, said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., the author.

The amendment garnered 56 votes in July, and with Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., back on the job after suffering a brain hemorrhage, the measure should be within three votes of victory. Webb said Wednesday he was in talks with at least two more Republicans, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and George Voinovich of Ohio.

Another amendment in bipartisan talks is a revised withdrawal proposal that likely would include timelines to start drawdowns but would leave a final pullout date as a goal rather than a deadline.

And an amendment by Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, to mandate a change of mission in Iraq is gaining currency with Democratic leaders, according to leadership aides. The amendment would order missions to shift immediately from combat to counterterrorism, border security and the training of Iraqi security forces. Collins said withdrawals would be inevitable, because those missions could be accomplished with 50,000 to 60,000 troops. In the House, Reps. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, John Tanner, D-Tenn., and Phil English, R-Pa., are pushing for a vote on their bill to require Bush to report to Congress on redeployment planning within 60 days — and every 90 days thereafter. The bill cleared the House Armed Services Committee on a 55-2 vote.

Democratic House leaders also must watch a brewing revolt by their most ardent war critics, who have vowed to fight any bill they do not believe will end the war.

"Doing it step by step is one thing, but when you have such a short time to do it, you only have time for a few steps," said Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. "You have to take big ones, not little ones."

Reid's comments were reported by the Chicago Tribune.