( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Jane Harman, eight months ago speaking on the floor of the House (all emphasis mine):

“Since I returned from my third trip to Iraq last September, I have been calling on the Administration to develop an exit strategy.  And I believe it is now time to begin the phased, strategic redeployment of U.S. and coalition forces out of Iraq on a schedule designed by military commanders, not designed by the US Congress.

“The U.S. is part of the solution in Iraq, but our large military presence is part of the problem.  Beginning to reduce the “footprint,” while maintaining an over-the-horizon strike force, will improve our chances for success.

“I think we have 3-6 months to advance three objectives:

Notice the 6 month timeframe given?  That explains my use of the Friedman Unit in the post title.  The term is named after the “serious” foreign policy writer at the NYT, Thomas Friedman.  Check the link and you will learn why.

Back to Harman’s objectives:.

“First, helping the new Iraqi government provide electrical power, particularly in Baghdad, and deliver other critical economic and social services to the Iraqi people.

When Jane Harman made this speech (June 2006), Baghdad had 8.0 hours of electricity a day. Six months later (Dec 2006), the city had just 6.7 hours a day, and it has even less now (6.1).  Nationwide, the number of hours of electricity/day has also declined significantly – from 11.9 to 9.2 six months later.  (Source: Brookings Institution, Iraq Index, p. 28)

Other critical economic and social indicators:
Unemployment stands at an astronomical 25-40%, unchanged since June (Iraq Index, p. 29)

Inflation that’s well north of 50%, due to fuel prices jumping 800% between end of 2005 and early 2007, and still at 35% when excluding energy costs. ((Iraq Index, p. 33)

And when you can’t provide security — as the daily bombings in Baghdad attest — you can’t exactly provide social services.

“Second, supporting the Iraqi government in its effort to disarm Shiite militias and integrate them into a trained Iraqi national security force.

After Harman’s six month window, the number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias actually increased from 100 to 185((Iraq Index, p. 20), and this clearly involves Shiite militias in addition to Sunnis, otherwise you wouldn’t have the Iraqi prime minister calling on Shiite militias to disarm.

“Third, continuing the process, begun by our able Ambassador Khalilzad, of obtaining buy-in from Sunni political leaders.

That doesn’t appear to have advanced any from June until now. 

“Achieving these objectives will enable us to leave Iraq in better shape than we found it.

OK, then the inverse of this should also hold true: Failure to achieve these objectives will prevent us from leaving Iraq in better shape than we found it.

“The next three months are critical.  We have a moral obligation to assist Iraq on its path to democracy, but if clearly-defined minimum objectives cannot be achieved within that time frame, the prospects for success in Iraq could all but disappear.  So … a change of course is urgently needed.

That critical three month window closed on September 15, and the six-month window closed on December 15. 

And based on the objectives that Jane Harman herself laid out in June, Iraq is messed up beyond repair.  Not only have none of her three objectives been achieved yet, but there’s been little, if any, progress on reaching any of them.

But all we hear from Harman is more of the same.

If we can’t leave until Iraq is fixed, we’ll be there forever.  It’s time Jane got real on this.

[crossposted at From the Fever Swamp]

As today’s article in the LA Times “Bush insists Congress can’t halt Iraq buildup”demonstrates, Bush is not going to sit on his hands while Congress considers whether it’s going to do anything to prevent him from escalating the Iraq occupation without its authority.  The strategy is pretty clear that they are getting the troops in place in Iraq without approval and then will dare Congress to de-fund real live troops who are “on the ground”.  They may even drop the bogus claim that Congress hasn’t the authority to stop the president because they won’t need it anymore.

They’re just aiming to achieve a fait accompli to make it an “anti-troops” decision not to fund the escalation.

Time is of the essence to head the administration off at the pass.  No time to waste.

Enter Jane Harman —

— this is from her interview with Andrea Mitchell on Wednesday last week (Jan 10).  (I’ve transcribed it myself).

Mitchell:  What’s the point of a symbolic vote against [the increase of the troops in Iraq] – either you are going to cut off money for the troops or  – shouldn’t you just go along with what the President wants?

Harman:  Well, um, you know, I think there are constitutional issues about what he can do in his capacity as Commander in Chief, but we write the checks and it is high time for Congress to do the oversight necessary to do the oversight necessary and have the materials to do the oversight necessary and I believe we are going to do that.  One of the ideas I’ve been floating is to put all the additional war costs on budget – no more supplemental spending […] this is no longer an emergency under the definition of an emergency.

OK, that wasn’t exactly an answer to the question put to her.  If she’s going to have any impact, she’s got to cut off the funding – is she willing to do that, Mitchell asks.  In her answer, she raises the issue of Bush’s constitutional powers as commander in chief.  That is not a good sign!  As she should have known, it is well within the powers of the Congress to prevent funding from going for an increase of troops – and there’s multiple precedents of past Congresses doing exactly that.

Mitchell tried again —

Mitchell:  Congresswoman, you’ve talked about more oversight, but Joe Biden said on Meet the Press that constitutionally, Congress doesn’t have the power to do what Ted Kennedy and Ed Markey and others are suggesting – cutting off the funds.  Do you agree with that or not?

Harman: Well, I think we have to look at that.  Uh, I think there are constitutional issues.  He is the Commander in Chief.  Ah, Congress did vote for a resolution to authorize the action in Iraq. I supported it at the time based on what turned out to be wrong intelligence, and I was wrong.  But there have to be levers now, four years into this, to gain – to regain – Congress’ traction as an independent branch of government and I believe we will find out what these levers are.

An ignorant or disingenuous Democrat asserts the fallacy that Bush has the right to make war however he wants and Congress must fund it, something that is pretty clearly wrong, and Jane Harman – definitely not a newbie to Congress – has no idea that that’s false!?  And she has no clue what “levers of traction” Congress has to check the president’s power?  With a president who’s been asserting unchecked power going on five plus years, it’s pretty pathetic she’s only now getting around to figuring out what power congress has to check his power.

Pretty soon, Bush will get what he wants because he’ll “change the reality” while unprepared and unsure congressmen and women like Jane Harman dither, and by that time the threat of anti-troop/anti-American demagoguery will make it all but certain congress won’t act – even if, by that time, they’ve realized they do have the authority to deny Bush’s escalation.

(crossposted from my blog that mostly covers Jane Harman, From the Fever Swamp)

In the Washington Post, Lois Romano gossips her way through a piece on the rivalry between Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi, and Harman’s residual anger over being passed over as chair of the House Intelligence Committee.  But there’s a little nugget in there:

She has lamented that Congress has lost its luster for her and that she is hoping for a job in a Democratic administration, according to a friend. “She’s obsessed,” the source said. “It’s been hard for her not to take it personally, but it’s over.”

I don’t know if this means that Harman won’t seek re-election: she likely wants to be in some official position of power.  But she’d leap at the chance to join a Democratic Administration and vacate her Congressional seat, setting up a special election.  Progressives obviously have a strong infrastructure in this district: Marcy Winograd received nearly 40% of the vote in a primary challenge.  Perhaps there won’t be a need for any more primary fights.

It also begs the question of whether Harman is really the best choice for what would almost certainly be an intelligence-related post under a Democratic President.