How many U.S. troops will remain in Iraq?

Likewise one anti-war group signaled its willingness — for now — to live with the Levin-Reed measure.

In an e-mail to its members, the anti-war group Progressive Democrats of America Tuesday urged them to “Tell Democrats that even if the Levin-Reed amendment passes, their work is NOT done. The Levin-Reed Amendment does not end the occupation and it leaves too many troops and all military contractors behind in Iraq.”

The e-mail said that the amendment “would begin to bring some troops home, but would NOT end the occupation!”

Home by the holidays?
But despite the e-mail’s militant tone, Tim Carpenter, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America said in an interview Tuesday that passage of amendment would be “a good first step” and that “in the months ahead” his group would urge senators to “step forward to offer an amendment to bring the troops home by the holidays.”

He said his group had both an “outside” and “inside” strategy, with the latter focused on conversations with Democratic senators and staff members. “Our work inside is incremental,” he explained. “We’re going to push for a vote on no permanent (U.S.) bases” in Iraq, a stance that appears to be at odds with Democratic leaders such Sen. Barack Obama, D- Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D- N.Y., both of whom have spoken of the need, as they see it, for some U.S. forces to remain in Iraq.

“No permanent bases is a line in the sand for progressive Democrats,” Carpenter said.

NBC video Does the U.S. have confidence in Iraq's Maliki? July 16: Amid growing concerns over his role in the re-building of Iraq, Prime Minister al-Maliki tells NBC's Richard Engel that Iraqi forces could take the reins by the first of next year. Nightly News

In an alternative to the Levin-Reed proposal, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D- La., offered her own plan Tuesday to re-focus U.S. forces on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the al Qaida network, with troops being moved from Iraq to Afghanistan.

She would leave to Bush and military commanders the timing, pace and magnitude of the shift of forces.

Re-focus on Afghanistan
“Either to continue to spend money in Iraq where Osama bin Laden is not, or to bring the troops home and say ‘we’ve done all we can on terrorism’ — neither one is correct,” the Louisiana Democrat said.

She said she didn’t support a funding cutoff for either Iraq or Afghanistan operations. “I don’t believe in drying up the money; I believe we’re in a very serious war against terrorism. I just disagree where the front line is.”

As for the Bush administration argument that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq would create the risk of a failed state and a haven for more terrorists, Landrieu said, “That’s a legitimate question. That is why I’ve not been the one to argue for an immediate pullout or an immediate draw-down. But I cannot understand why we are not trying to redirect our resources in a more appropriate and even way across the front line of terror.”

Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that under the Democrats’ plans for Iraq “tens of thousands” of troops could remain. But on Monday Reid said the number of soldiers remaining would be “in the low thousands” if Democrats pass the Levin-Reed measure.

The Senate will vote Wednesday on a motion to cut off debate on that amendment; it needs 60 votes in order to succeed.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

President vs. party on troop increase Aspiring reality TV stars crash Obama party Obama to speak Tuesday on Afghanistan policy U.S. sets climate target ahead of summit Obama's first pardon: A turkey called 'Courage' Records show White House health care talks Stars are out at White House state dinner The history of presidential turkey pardons Is Obama's star dimming as U.S. stock drops? NYT: Medical debt spurs more bankruptcies Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: