Turkish Parliament: Troops into N. Iraq When (If) Given Order

As expected, the Turkish Parliament passed the resolution officially authorizing any troop incursions into northern Iraq. And it passed by an overwhelming margin:

Turkey's parliament voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to allow the government the year-long right to send troops to neighboring northern Iraq to crush Turkish Kurdish rebels there. House speaker Koksal Toptan said 507 lawmakers in the 550-seat parliament voted in favor of a government motion seeking authorization for military action in northern Iraq; only 19 voted against.

Of course, it should be noted (and Turkey has taken pains to point out) that the passing of this resolution in no way means that a troop incursion is about to happen or even inevitable, it simply means that there is official authorization for it when it is deemed right.


So, technically nothing might happen...but, and this is a big 'but,' it is going to take some serious action on the part of the United States to convince Turkey not to do something their leaders and its population are practically demanding they do.

I'm not sure the Kurdish authorities can be counted on to crack down on PKK separatists, and as big of a mess as this could be for the US (especially since this has been the most 'peaceful region in Iraq so far), it has few options that are likely to mollify the Turks .

If it clamps down on the PKK and sends troops up north there are several drawbacks:

1) It reduces the number of troops it other necessary areas that continue to be violent areas: Baghdad, and al-Anbar...but mostly Baghdad area

2) It will inflame and anger Kurds up north who so far have proven pro-American and have not attacked US forces. Putting troops in the north increases the possibility of conflict with the Kurds, stirring up a hornets nest. I doubt the US want trouble there.

But what can it do?

It's a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't

They can't defend the Kurdish north from an incursion using the US military. Frankly that would be the worse outcome.

It would destroy our longstanding alliance with Turkey and put us in the uncomfortable and unthinkable position of having two NATO alliance members fighting each other. US supply lines which run through Turkey would likely be cut (and they still may be even if it doesn't come to blows), making keeping our soldiers armed and ready would be much more difficult.

Ultimately, I hope something will stop the Turks but if the Turks do send troops into northern Iraq, it is my belief that the US ultimately will stand by and not interfere. No doubt the Iraqi Kurds will remember that with some resentment (how that will effect future Iraq I don't know).

Things aren't looking very good...here's to a peaceful resolution.

I'll keep updating here.

PS: For you car people, you may start feeling the effects of this drama pretty soon. Fear of an incursion into norther Iraq have sent crude oil prices to $88 dollar/barrel and would only go up if they were to enter. Kirkuk - in norther Iraq - is rich with oil deposits and it should also be noted that the main transit point for Kirkuk oil runs through (you guessed it) Turkey.

PPS: I'm trying to shorten up my posts so I may post more often from now on. That way I can deal with the same amount of info but make it easier to read.

Turkey to Invade Northern Iraq? What's Behind It and What Does It Mean for the US?

By now some of you might have heard about the very real threat of Turkey sending in troops to Northern Iraq's Kurdish region.

This development is by no means a sudden and out-of-the-blue thing; This tension has been steadily building up for a while now. I myself have been keeping tabs on the situation at least as far back as July of 2006 but I know that this tension has been building up since before that.

Kurdistan
First a map of "Kurdistan", in quotes because although so named, its not actually a nation. It encompasses 3 nations and therein lies some of the problem. They are an ethnic group with no nation, so there are some movements for "separation" to create their own state...obviously existing nations who would lose land don't exactly like that idea.


Short Summary of the Situation
A short and overly simplified explanation for the situation is:

Kurdish separatist militants of the Kurdistan Workers Party (The PKK is the local acronym) (considered a terrorist group) undertake separatist activity in Turkey that often involve acts of terror such as ambushes and explosions killing Turkish politicians and innocent civilians.

These Kurdish seperatists often escape to northern Iraq's Kurdish region where they have a safe haven from attacks my Turkey's military, and they are free to train and use norther Iraq as a base of operations for attacks in Turkey.

The Kurdish authorities have done little if anything to crack down on the PKK, angering Turkey, and the US has not done anything to curtail the PKK, further angering Turkey.
[At this point it should be noted that Turkey is a long running ally of the United States dating back to the Cold War, and that Turkey along with the US are members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) who's defining principal is that 'if one member nation is attacked, it is as if all were attacked']

So officials in Turkey are so fed up with this situation that they are mulling sending in troops to Northern Iraq to deal with the Kurdish separatists.

For a good, and less simplistic, overview of the situation I urge you to read "What's Behind the Turkish Threat to Send Troops to Iraq"by noted Daily Kos diarist DHinMI.

It is not too long and will help you understand the news you see or hear better.

If you've done that (hell, even if you haven't) I can move along to the subject at hand.

----------
The Unfolding Situation

Things seem to be coming to a head, and the next few links will detail this unfolding situation

First, Turkey's top political and military leaders 'authorize' troops to enter Iraq to fight the rebels (NY Times)

ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward a military operation in Iraq on Tuesday, as its top political and military leaders issued a statement authorizing troops to cross the Iraq border to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the northern region. (snip)
Turkey moved toward military action in the face of strong opposition by the United States, which is anxious to maintain peace in the region, one of the rare areas of stability in conflict-torn Iraq. But more than two dozen Turkish soldiers have been killed in recent days, and the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seemed far more determined than before to act decisively.

A government official without authorization to speak publicly on the issue who asked not to be identified by name, said preparations were under way to seek parliamentary approval for a cross-border military operation, a request that would be the first formal step toward an offensive.

The Associated Press reported that the request would be submitted to Parliament as early as Wednesday.

Government offices and institutions have been ordered “to take all economic and political measures, including cross-border operations when necessary, in order to end the existence of the terror organization in a neighboring country,” said the statement, which was released by Mr. Erdogan’s office, after he met with political and military leaders in Ankara.

A Turkish military offensive into northern Iraq, while unlikely, would have far-reaching consequences for the United States. Turkey is a NATO member and has the region’s most powerful army.

As the article notes, such an offensive would have disastrous repercussions for Iraq and for the United States. (I'll go into some of those negative repercussion later on in this post).

For now I want to shift your attention to the final bolded part of that excerpt where the NY Times seemingly asserts unilaterally - without reason or source - that "A Turkish military offensive into northern Iraq [is] unlikely..."

Again, the times makes such a bold claim without explaining the reasoning behind its assertion, nor does it even cite 'anonymous officials' or "X expert" or whatever to explain it either.

Especially confusing because subsequent articles and events are pointing in the direction of ever increasing likelihood of a Turkish incursion into Iraq.

What's my reasoning?

-------

All subsequent events since the initial announcement of "authorization" for the incursion has pointed in the direction of escalation, not deescalation.

First, it has been reported that the ruling Justice & Development Party (in Turkey) promised that a motion to allow Turkish soldiers to cross over into Iraq will be ready to be voted on by next week. Giving the "authorization" previously mentioned the legislative legitimacy needed. And, given the extreme public pressure on the Prime Minister and on other MP (Ministers of Parliament...think similarly to US Representatives even if not exact matches) to do something about Kurdish separatist problems that has claimed the lives of so many civilians and soldiers, it stands a good chance of passing.

Officials of the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party said a motion allowing Turkish forces to conduct a cross border operation into Iraq could be ready for a voting in the Parliament by next week while the Bush administration says such a measure will create more complications and that border security concerns can be better addressed by working with the government in Baghdad. Meanwhile, NATO remains silent.

And in what has to be one of the more ironic things to come out of the mouths of Bush Administration officials, we have this:

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is under domestic pressure to act against PKK militants whose attacks have killed 15 Turkish soldiers since Sunday. Some Turkish lawmakers say they are following the example of President Bush, who often says U.S. troops are fighting terrorists inside Iraq so they do not have to fight them at home. While the United States considers the PKK a terrorist group, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says the president does not support unilateral Turkish military action in Iraq.

Ha!! The US is stuck in an awfully awkward position of its own doing. It is in the position of trying to tell Turkey to not unilaterally invade another nation...a nation that just so happens to also be Iraq! Though it's kind of hard to have any moral position to tell another nation not to undertake an action that they themselves asserted the unrestrained right to do just a few years ago.

What's even more ironic is that Turkish politicians have taken to using one of the very same rationales - fighting the terrorists - that the United States did in its justifying of invading Iraq.

Oh, irony of ironies!!....

And in actuality, Turkey can make a much better and legitimate case for its incursion into northern Iraq on those grounds that the United States ever could on the same grounds (the terror links were patently shown to be non-existent and that was know by the non-partisans in the intelligence community even before the US invasion).

Yet another repercussion of our Iraq invasion: Nations will emulate the US thinking, "if the US does it....so can I"

Don't believe me? Here's what the Prime Minister of Turkey had to say to a crowd of cheering Turks:

"We don't need anyone's advice on northern Iraq and the operation to be carried out there," Erdogan told a cheering crowd in Istanbul, after saying that the United States "came tens of thousands of kilometers and attacked Iraq without asking anyone's permission."

What kind of argument can the Bush Administration possibly use in response without being branded the worlds largest hypocrites?
-----
A second development that points in the direction of increasing escalation is the fact that Turkey's warplanes and gunships have already begun attacking suspected PKK targets on and around the Iraqi border.

Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships attacked suspected positions of Kurdish rebels near Iraq on Wednesday, a possible prelude to a cross-border operation that would likely raise tensions with Washington. The military offensive also reportedly included shelling of Turkish Kurd guerrilla hideouts in northern Iraq, which is predominantly Kurdish.

So they have begun air attacks in Iraq, the next step is the ground troops. And this little piece tells you how possible that Turkish parliament resolution of force is of passing:

An opposition nationalist party said it would support the proposal.

If parliament approves, the military could choose to launch an operation immediately or wait to see if the United States and its allies decide to crack down on the rebels, who have been fighting for autonomy in southeast Turkey since 1984 in a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

When the ruling party and those in a opposing nationalist party are seeing eye-to-eye, you have some trouble. Of course, nationalist, being nationalists, are usually the most jingoistic when it comes to using force. And of course there must be other opposition parties who are not quite so nationalistic...I'd really like to know where the other parties stand.

And how serious is the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan: Apparently, serious enough to claim that he is ready for a US-Turkey split (Washington Post) in the aftermath of an incursion.

Now, is he really serious about that, I simply don't know. It is indeed possible that this sharp language is the Prime Ministers attempt to get the U.S. and Iraq to finally do something themselves to stop the PKK terrorist group in northern Iraq.

I sincerely doubt that Turkey really wants a military engagement on their hands, as well as a significant blow to relations with one of Turkey's oldest ally (and fellow NATO member) the United States. But Turkey will only accept so much...if it doesn't see the U.S. or Iraq doing anything to reign in the PKK, Turkey may just go ahead and enter northern Iraq....

And the consequences are many

Possible Consequences

As mentioned before, the US has had a long standing alliance and relationship with Turkey. They are both NATO members and it will be interesting to see where NATO and its North Atlantic Council stand on the issue of one member invading where another nation is involved in.

What worries me is that Turkey with its its predominantly Muslim population has nonetheless managed to retain a more secular society that is balanced with more moderated Islamic sentiments, and we risk Turkey drifting apart from US. This drifting away from the US is not being helped by the fact that the Senate recently passed a non-binding resolution that calls the mass-killing of Armenians by the old Ottoman Empire (precursor to the nation of Turkey) a "genocide". What horrible timing on the part of Democrats...

[Turkey has vehemently denied it was a "genocide" (it IS a genocide I don't care what they say) and is very very touchy about the issue for them. Don't know why they are so touchy...the genocide was the work of a regime and Empire that no longer exists, and that the founders of the modern Turkish nation fought against...why deny the crimes of a regime they fought against? But I'm an American looking at this from an American perspective so where the hell do I get off]

Turkey although not perfect, in many ways is the type of majority Muslim nation that more closely resemble that "model" that some see for the Middle East at large. It would be very regrettable for the US and Turkey to drift farther apart due to this, yet what can the US do?

Northern Iraq has been one of the relatively peaceful spots in Iraq and I seriously doubt it wants to stir things up in Northern Iraq and potentially make enemies with the Kurds who so far have proven much more pro-American than the other sectarian groups in Iraq. And sending in troops to the by the US has the potential to create drama that the US does not need any more of.

They already have their hands full with the myriads of Sunni and Shia groups fighting the US, fighting themselves, and fighting each other... I doubt the US wants to make the situation any worse.

But if they cannot come to some agreement that placates the Turkish government, Turkey may just go in themselves and stir things up in a region that up till now has been relatively peaceful.

And a breakdown in US-Turkey relations has serious repercussions on its own, especially as it regards the Iraq mission:

From previously cited article (AP):

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that 70 percent of U.S. air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkish air space. About a third of the fuel used by the U.S. military in Iraq also goes through Turkey.

"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said.

Turkey has raised the possibility of impeding logistical and other U.S. military traffic now using the airspace.

We depend heavily on Turkey for maintaining our presence in Iraq, and a split could seriously complicate the mission in a very abrupt manner.

So, stay tuned and pay attention to the news because things might get a little more "interesting" (not good interesting either) in the near future. And I'll be here, keeping track on my own and reporting here.

------

Your Thoughts?

So, what are your thoughts? Based on what you've read here, what you've heard, seen or read elsewhere, or just on your gut...What do you guys think?

Will Turkey enter Northern Iraq? What will the US do? What's going to happen? etc..etc...

I'd really like to know what you guys think.

What Happens When We Leave Iraq?

Now that the war is turning into a political liability for Republicans and conservatives, a new justification for our continued presence has popped up:

We cannot leave Iraq or else Iraq will be controlled by Al Qaeda in Iraq and remain a safe-haven for terrorism. They will follow us home etc... etc...

This view of likely post-withdrawal scenarios is - in my view - informed by sheer ignorance about how the various sectarian actors in Iraq will react to the withdrawal of US troops and by a general ignorance of foreign policy and terrorism.

Not only is al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) a relatively small group in Iraq, it also responsible for a very small percentage of total attacks in Iraq. The bulk of the violence is due to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shia militias.

Let me fill you guys in on something. Apologies because I know I've said this before:

Nobody in Iraq likes Al-Qaeda

-Sunni Insurgents: Hate these foreign fighters (despite both of them being Sunni), distrust their motives. Many of the Sunni insurgent groups are ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. Islamic jihadists and Baathists hated each other in the pre-invasion era.

This fact explains why many of us doubters were simply baffled that Bush would claim that Saddam was harboring Islamic terrorists in his country. They were just as eager to kill Saddam as they were to kill Americans!!

Yet, up until now (in the post-invasion era) there has been toleration and cooperation between the Sunni insurgents and AQI. Why?

Because they have made a marriage of convenience to deal with the perceived 'greater evil' of the US occupation. But, make no mistake, there is no love lost between these two groups

As I noted in a June blog post (citing CNN):

U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.

This new alliance, a result of the deepening divisions among Iraqi insurgent factions, was on display earlier this week at a highway intersection in the town of Tahrir. There, a group of some 15 insurgents publicly chanted: "Death to al Qaeda."

"The al Qaeda organization has dominated and humiliated Sunnis, Shiites and jihadis. It has forced people from their homes. They can't get enough blood. They killed many honest scholars, preachers and loyal mujahedeen," one of the group's spokesmen read from a written manifesto.

It's a sharp turnaround from just two months ago when the same insurgent forces were focused on fighting U.S. troops and driving them out of Diyala province, about 40 miles north of Baghdad.

No love lost there, yet they cooperated for reasons of opposing the US...except, some insurgent groups are now working WITH the US against AQI for the very same reasons. Some of these groups get arms and support, and they will use it against AQI (and inevitably, I believe, against Shias).

But the same article gives us reason for caution in this ugly alliance:

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

In other words - once they weaken al-Qaeda they will attack our troops again until we withdraw from Iraq.

Here's the funny thing: This 'enemy of my enemy' relationship that is still significant between Sunni insurgent groups and AQI is only made possible because of US troop presence in Iraq. If the US where to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Sunni insurgent groups would quickly eliminate the Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.

----
What about the Shia?

The Shia loath AQI. Unlike the Sunni insurgent groups, the Shia militias have no significant reason to even cooperate with AQI. AQI is a Sunni jihadist extremist group who loves to kill Shias as apostates and untrue Muslims.

There will be no tolerance - and indeed there is none now - for AQI among the Shia groups in Iraq.

The Kurds?

The Kurds similarly have no need or love for AQI. They have a slightly-more-stable enclave in the north of Iraq and have no need for the chaos that AQI is known to bring. They will find no shelter and no love among the Kurds.

Conclusions

Lets be clear, there will be no good options in Iraq. There will be no magical solution, no course of action, which will lead to anything but some levels of significant violence even civil war in Iraq. That outcome is unavoidable whether we stay in Iraq or leave; And indeed, such outcomes are the inevitable product of our own initial mistake of invading Iraq, and subsequent mistakes in managing the occupation. We are stuck in a scenario with very few options and none of them good; some just less bad.

If we withdraw from Iraq - and I think we should - there will be violence in Iraq but that is unavoidable. But the United States can take a bad outcome for the US and make it less bad by withdrawing.

As long as the US remains in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq will retain a safe-haven, a training ground, and a recruitment tool from Iraq. Every day that we remain in Iraq is a day that we allow al-Qaeda a base, a day we boost its recruiting, a day that we do precisely what it wants us to do.

In addition withdrawal will benefit the US by freeing up our military and giving it time to recover, by relieving some of the heavy strain on the budget from the billions we spend per month on the war, and freeing up the US to concentrate on international jihadist terrorism aimed at us. The Iraq War has been a heavy chain around our neck and a source of anger and resentment from the international community...only when we finally leave can we ever hope to begin repairing our standing and relationships with the globe. That, I fear, will take years or decades...

------

So what does the Pentagon itself believe will happen in case of a US withdrawal?

The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing the results of a recent Pentagon "war-gaming" of just such an outcome. It's important to note that they did not find that Al-Qaeda would control Iraq.

Here's what they did find:

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

The ugliness really is unavoidable at this point.

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan."

This lack of concern for al-Qaeda creating some permanent sanctuary likely stems from the knowledge that they are a relatively small groups in Iraq, and that they are not likely to survive long after the Americans leave.

The United States needs to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. From a range of options that are all bad, it is the lesser evil and one that will harm the United States the least.

We must bring the troops home

------------

Roundup

Iraq

Turkey Threatens Iraq Incursion - Yet another complication for the US mission in Iraq. I've followed the rising tensions between Iraq and Turkey due to Kurdish rebel groups attacking Turkey and taking refuge in Northern Iraq.

Turkey has warned that it could send troops into northern Iraq after today's general elections if talks with Iraqi and US officials fail to produce effective measures against Kurdish rebels based there.

I'll update if anything happens...although if it did I'm sure it would be plastered on the TV all day.

Analysis: GOP Senators nervous about the war (Associated Press) - I'd be nervous too if I were them. It's a good read but there are several parts of this article that deserve special comment

Asked whether they believe that the war was mismanaged Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) replied:

"The strategy we had before was not the right strategy," he told reporters at midweek. "We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."

By his remarks, Bond made it clear he meant the strategy was wrong from the time Saddam Hussein was deposed until this past January, when Gen. David Petraeus was installed as top military commander. That's a span of nearly four years.

Asked who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, "Ultimately, obviously, the president."

Should any blame fall on Congress — under Republican control the entire time?

"Congress was not running the war," Bond replied.

He's right in that the war was indeed mismanaged and that the US should have focused more on counterinsurgency tactics from the get-go. [As an aside, I'll add that counterinsurgency tactics would not have assured success, and at this point it is too late and too chaotic for those tactics to change the situation]

What riles me up is that they seek to place all blame with the President for not changing tactics but the Republican Congress had 4 years to pressure for change...so why didn't it?

Quite simple: They didn't think they had the wrong strategy. Or, they were too cowardly or afraid to criticize the war strategy. In fact, they went out of their way to attack Democrats and others who argued that this war was being mismanaged. It's insulting for these Republicans to now try and skirt away from some of the blame for the disaster.

Here's another thing that got my interest:

"Today's mission is focused on al-Qaida," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., reflecting what other administration allies in Congress say privately.

In this view, the main U.S. military focus should be on preventing Iraq from falling under terrorist control. One Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shift in talk of a military objective was a prelude to a change to a strategy that would pull U.S. troops back from a civil war between Sunni and Shiites.

But focusing attention on al-Qaida raises familiar questions: Were terrorists present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion and what would happen if U.S. forces departed?

According to several officials, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and McCain engaged in a brief, impromptu debate touching on that point recently at a private meeting of the rank and file.

Voinovich said the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq would together drive al-Qaida from their country if the U.S. were not there. McCain took the opposite view. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting that the meeting was private.

The Republicans are focusing now on keeping al-Qaeda from controlling Iraq. Yet it seems clear that it is our very presence in Iraq which is allowing al-Qaeda to retain Iraq as a base. You see the problem don't you.

-The invasion of Iraq introduced terrorism to Iraq that was not present before
- The presence of al-Qaeda that the Administration made possible is becoming the rationale for our continued presence in Iraq.
- Our continued presence ensures al-Qaeda retains its base in Iraq, thus ensuring our continued presence. Go back to step 2.

It's a goddamed vicious cycle of idiocy that feeds off of its own idiocy to create more idiocy that...well you get the point.

-----

What's is even more frustrating is that Republican Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) seems to understand that Iraqi's will eliminate al-Qaeda after a US withdrawal, and that is good.

But, why, Sen. Voinovich, if you do understand that do you refuse to vote for Senator Harry Reeds binding withdrawal timetable resolution? Why do you proclaim you want a change in Iraq policy yet opt to vote against an amendment which will do just that?

Cowardice

Senator Voinovich and other 'Waverers In Name Only' (WINO's) want the political cover of saying they split with the President and took a stand against the war by supporting bills and amendments by "moderates" in the Senate which would not force the President to change anything. That is cowardice, and that is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. They want the credit for being anti-war, without doing anything substantive to ensure that the war come to an end.

And they are angry because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is not giving them the chance to get that political cover: After those WINOs refused to help him beat the Republican Filibuster of his amendment mandating withdrawal (added to a Pentagon bill), he shelved the whole Pentagon bill (along with the other toothless "moderate" amendments) that those moderate Republicans and Democrats hoped would give them political cover.

So...now they get voted no on the Iraq withdrawal, and they are denied their political cover. So, if they really want to reduce the pressure on them from Americans they will just have to play ball with Reed and vote on his amendment next time he brings up the Pentagon bill...or else he'll do it to them again.

Let the cowards flail in the wind.....