Coleman finds little support on Senate panel

01/26/2007

He opposes Bush's policy on Iraq, but he finds the Democrats' language and alternative unacceptable.


By Rob Hotakainen and Brady Averill,
Star Tribune Washington Bureau
Last update: January 25, 2007


WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman said he opposed sending more troops to Baghdad but that U.S. forces were making "great headway" fighting insurgents in Anbar Province.

So far, he's finding few takers for his argument. "I've made seven trips into Anbar Province," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee told Coleman during a hearing Wednesday. "I've yet to find a single solitary military officer, from sergeant to general, who has said that we have made any substantial progress. Every aspect of the president's policy has been a failure."

The committee approved a resolution rebuking President Bush's troop increase in language that was stronger than Coleman favored.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said that California has lost the most soldiers in Iraq. "And by the way," she said, "I would say to Senator Coleman, most of them die in Anbar Province."

When Coleman proposed sending more U.S. troops to Anbar but not to Baghdad, the committee voted 17-4 to reject his plan. Before that vote, Coleman suggested removing language from his amendment that said U.S. forces "have had great success" in Anbar, instead saying they "are engaged" in the battle against the terrorist insurgency.

In a call with reporters Thursday, Coleman explained he didn't want his amendment to become a distraction. "I didn't want to get into debate over the language, over whether we're having success or not."

Coleman jumped into the national spotlight on Iraq on Jan. 10, when he gave a speech saying he opposed the president's request to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. In defending his plan before the committee, Coleman said he wanted "to draw the distinction between the concern that many of us have about putting American troops in the cross-hairs of sectarian violence, but at the same time not pulling the plug, and recognizing, if our commanders in Anbar say that we're making success, we've got to listen to that."

That drew a retort from Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who backed a more strongly worded resolution opposing any more troops: "There is nowhere in our resolution, senator, that references pulling the plug."

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Florida, who accompanied Coleman on a trip to Iraq in December, sympathized with his position. "Senator Coleman and I were in Anbar, and the Marine generals there convinced us that an increase of the troops in Anbar would help them," he said.

Joseph Peschek, a political science professor at Hamline University, said Coleman appears caught between the White House and Democrats. "My political sense is that Coleman does want to register disagreement with Bush's course, but to do so in a way that doesn't require him to sign onto a largely Democratic alternative," Peschek said.

Larry Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Public Policy and Governance, said Coleman is trying to sell a position that is complicated and nuanced: "Complication and nuance in a driving rainstorm are often hard to pick up."