Senator Calls for Maliki's Ouster

Last Friday, Baird told the Olympian, a newspaper in his district, that he now believes the United States should stay in the country as long as necessary to ensure stability.

That followed comments by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) suggesting that his trip to Iraq made him more flexible in his search for a bipartisan accord on the future U.S. role in the conflict. "If anything, I'm more willing to work to find a way forward," he told reporters late last month.

Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.), who was with McNerney, told his local paper that the troop increase "has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaeda on their heels."

At times, such statements have been clearly taken out of context. When Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) returned from Iraq and said, "We're making some measurable progress," the GOP declared that the Democratic leadership had splintered on the war. What Republicans left out was the rest of Durbin's remarks: "We cannot win this war militarily. We just can't send enough troops."

But some Democrats have shifted their views. Baird said yesterday that Congress's debate over the war has destabilized Iraq by sending wary Iraqi politicians back to their sectarian bases of support.

"We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one," Baird said, "and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region."

Levin was unambiguous. Like other Democrats, he hailed the work of U.S. forces and an increasingly capable Iraqi army. Ten of the Iraqi army's 12 divisions are now trained, Levin said, and by year's end, an 11th will be ready.

Even so, he said, those forces will not take control until U.S. troops stand down. Levin stood by his timeline for beginning troop withdrawals within four months, with most U.S. forces out by the middle of next year.

It was Levin's comments on Maliki that broke new ground. The Bush administration has continued to back Maliki for several reasons, including concern that the collapse of his Shiite-dominated government might lead to months of internal political conflict. (After the 2005 elections, the newly elected parliament took five months to form a government.) U.S. officials also believe that Maliki has fewer ties to Iran than do other major Shiite candidates.

Yesterday, White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the administration continues to believe that "Prime Minister Maliki and the Presidency Council will be able to get this important work done."

Despite their deepening concerns about Maliki's leadership flaws, U.S. officials also believe that any new prime minister would confront the same obstacles in trying to broker political reconciliation.

Still, Democrats have quietly begun to voice a view that Maliki must go; Durbin said he told White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley that last week. But they acknowledge that they do not know what would happen next. If it appeared that Maliki had been ousted at Washington's behest, his replacement would be seen as a U.S. puppet -- a "kiss of death" in the region, Durbin said.

And Democratic leaders might feel compelled to ease their antiwar position to allow a new government to take root.

"Imagine if we have to step in with a brand-new leader and a new government," Durbin said. "How many more months would we have to wait?"

Staff writers Robin Wright and Walter Pincus contributed to this report.