I Remain Bi

Matt Yglesias makes some interesting arguments, as always, in this LA Times op-ed. The foreign policy priesthood has certainly wobbled from wrong to incoherent on the war--and the embarrassing squirmings of Michael O'Hanlon in an attempt to respond to criticisms that I and others made don't help much. This part is especially painful:

“Ultimately, politics trumps all else,” Mr. O'Hanlon said. “If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don't see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing.”

Speaking of politics, though, there is a hole in Yglesias's argument: The only way to build a veto-proof majority to force a change in Bush's war policy is by luring Republicans onto the team. Indeed, the more I think of Harry Reid's refusal to allow a vote on the bipartisan Salazar-Alexander amendment (which would implement the findings of the Iraq Study Commission), the more perplexed I get.

Salazar-Alexander (henceforth known as S-A), in all its toothless glory, is the best first step toward getting the policy changed. I suspect there would have been pretty damn near, and possibly more than, the 60 votes for S-A necessary to put an official change of war policy on Bush's desk...which the President, of course, would have vetoed. So what's the use of that?

It is a first step. It lays the predicate for the coming autumnal battle over the war. It creates a politically comfortable place for Republicans to join with Democrats. It establishes that Bush is flouting a bipartisan movement. It puts him even more on the defensive.

The second step would come after the Petraeus testimony: Numerous Republicans, like Senator Mitch McConnell, have indicated that they're off the bus come September. An amped-up (Update: by which I mean much stronger) version of S-A might get a veto-proof majority then. If Bush vetoes, is overruled and still proceeds with his policy, he is looking at a full-blown Constitutional Crisis (and, unlike the current, complicated, legalistic Gonzalez etc. situations, a crisis that the public could understand and sympathize with). At that point, he might be facing the threat of some major resignations--from the military, perhaps even from the Secretary of Defense.

I suspect Bush would change policy rather than be impeached. If you actually want to see the policy changed--and not just have the satisfaction of perpetually venting against an awful President--the bipartisan route is the only way to go. (Update: And don't forget, in practical political terms, this would visit untold amounts of pain and suffering on the GOP presidential candidates, who would be forced to take a position pro or con--my guess is that all except McCain would separate themselves from Bush at this point.) It could happen as soon as next month. If the Democrats are smart about it.