Gates pushes back on eve of war vote

As House Democrats edged closer Thursday to securing the votes to pass a war funding bill that would compel the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned that the current troop buildup would be jeopardized by any delays in enacting such funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and her lieutenants appeared to make more progress in their drive to reach a majority as more of the war’s staunchest opponents lined up behind the measure.

A Pelosi spokesman said President Bush would be to blame for any effect that delays in passing a bill would have on the military, saying the president had failed to adequately fund the war.

But the warning from Gates, who has largely stayed out of the political fray in his first three months at the Pentagon, threatened to upset the carefully crafted coalition of moderate and liberal Democrats that party leaders have been laboring to assemble behind the $124-billion measure.

The House is scheduled to vote today.

In his assessment -- delivered during a morning meeting with lawmakers and then repeated to reporters -- Gates said that failure to pass the Defense Department funding request within the next three weeks might force the Army to slow the training of units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan.

He also cautioned that further delay into mid-May could force the Army to extend the deployments of troops in war zones beyond their usual one-year tours, because replacement forces would not have enough money to complete their pre-combat training.

Gates declined to tell the Democrats what they should do, saying only, “I think it’s my responsibility to let everybody involved in the debate know the impact of the timing of the decisions.”

But the political brinksmanship of his remarks was clear.

One military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the secretary’s motivations, acknowledged that there was some politicking involved in the warning, noting that it had come the day before the House was scheduled to vote.

As the House launched debate on its bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its own version, which calls for the withdrawal of combat troops to begin within four months of the measure’s enactment and end by March 31, 2008.

Pelosi, meanwhile, huddled in the morning with leading members of the congressional Out of Iraq Caucus, who have complained that the timelines in the House bill are not aggressive enough. The bill would mandate a withdrawal no later than August 2008. After the meeting, it appeared likely that only a handful would hold out against the bill.

“There was some nervousness that many of us who hate this war and want to end the war ... may be playing into the president’s hands and giving him the victory he wants” by opposing the bill, said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who attended the gathering.

McGovern, one of the most antiwar lawmakers in the House, spoke in favor of the bill as debate began on the measure.

Pelosi and her allies also tracked down wavering members around the Capitol.

Thursday afternoon, she and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading architect of the Democratic withdrawal plan, cornered liberal holdout Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) on the House floor to drive home their argument.

Meanwhile, key centrist lawmakers cajoled moderates skittish about putting restrictions on what military commanders can do in Iraq.

Thursday morning, some members of the congressional New Democrat Coalition met to plot a final push to convince wavering moderates to help reach the majority needed to win.

“We will get 218 votes,” declared Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), a leader of the coalition who has been lobbying her colleagues for the measure.

Democratic leaders have touted their legislation as an effort to save the military. And Murtha angrily accused the Bush administration of depriving troops of the training, equipment and rest they needed.

“That’s what hurts our troops,” Murtha told Republicans on the floor of the House. “If you vote against this bill, you’re voting against the resources they need.”

Gates also suggested that failure to pass a war funding bill would hurt the military. But his warnings seemed directed at Democrats, who are pushing ahead with bills that the president has already promised to veto, ensuring weeks of delays before a final bill passes.

Gates told a bipartisan House delegation Thursday morning that the Army did not have that long.

The Pentagon has received $50 billion in war funding for the current fiscal year; the Bush administration has asked for $93.4 billion more to sustain current force levels through the end of the year.

If funding is not passed by mid-April, Gates said, the Army will consider the suspension of most training for National Guard units, which could directly affect next year’s Iraq deployments, because several Guard battalions are expected to be called up for war duty by the end of the year.

On the list of cutbacks for mid-May, Gates said, is a reduction of repair work at Army depots. The depots are already having difficulty repairing equipment quickly enough so it can be returned to war duty.

noam.levey@latimes.com

peter.spiegel@latimes.com

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this report.