Pelosi promotes Murtha

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In my last post, I argued that with respect to Iraq Democrats would be unwise to pursue a formal policy of redeployment, or phased withdrawal, largely for political reasons looking ahead to '08. And now I find that Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has expressed support for Jack Murtha's candidacy to be the next House majority leader. (Her letter is here.) This could be a problem. Or not. It depends.

Murtha has been one of the Democrats' most vocal critics of the Iraq War, with his own distinguished military service lending solid credibility to his criticism, and he called for a withdrawal a year ago. Pelosi's move signals that "she will take an aggressive line on Iraq," which is fine. I may object to the establishment of a formal policy, a commitment to which Democrats would be bound, but I certainly do not object to Democrats in the House taking "an aggressive line" against Bush on Iraq. My concern is that as House majority leader Murtha would, with Pelosi's support, work to bind Democrats to a formal policy of redeployment. Given his focus on foreign and military affairs, and given his own views on Iraq, he would more likely pursue such a policy than his main rival, Steny Hoyer, who has objected to setting a timetable for withdrawal and whose views on Iraq diverge from those of Murtha and Pelosi. (Although Hoyer and other House moderates do support withdrawal, just not as rapid a withdrawal as that supported by Murtha.)

Insofar as Murtha is Pelosi's choice, his elevation to majority leader would mean a close and productive working relationship between the House's two top Democrats, whereas a Hoyer win would mean that the two top Democrats wouldn't even get along with each other. (David Sirota has argued that Hoyer has actively worked to "topple" Pelosi.) So what to do? A Murtha victory would mean an alliance at the top and "an aggressive line" on Iraq that may include an unwise policy of redeployment. A Hoyer victory would mean competition at the top and less clarity on Iraq -- but also continuity, given Hoyer's position as whip and popularity in the caucus. And neither candidate is exactly flawless.

Now is not the time for conflict. However the vote goes, I hope Democrats rally behind the winner and settle into place for a productive session ahead. But the thing is, no matter how much I worry about committing to a formal policy of redeployment, and no matter how much I think Hoyer would be better for the job (not least because of his position on Iraq), it may be best for the Democrats, and for Pelosi's leadership, if Murtha wins.