Senators aim to revise Iraq mission, reduce troops

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) Key US Senate Democrats are preparing a proposal to start bringing US combat troops home from Iraq by rewriting Congress' 2002 authorization for the war, which many now view as a mistake, aides said.

Undeterred by Senate Republicans who halted a non-binding resolution opposing President George W Bush's troop buildup in Iraq, the Democrats are determined to challenge Bush anew by replacing the 2002 authorization of force in Iraq with a narrower mission statement for US troops, the aides said yesterday.

The newly defined US mission would involve denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq, training Iraqi troops and helping Iraqis protect their own borders, said one Democratic aide. The proposal would be binding and a draft calls for US troops not involved in the narrower mission to come home by early 2008, he said.

There are 139,000 US troops currently in Iraq; lawmakers would rely on the US military to tell them how many would be needed for the narrower mission, the aides said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The proposal is being drafted by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Delaware Sen.

Joseph Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and their staffs -- with the blessing of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the aides said.

It is largely written but undergoing ''tweaks'' to language.

Plans are to present it to all Senate Democrats at a meeting next Tuesday for debate and possible decisions on procedure for bringing it to the Senate floor, where the Democrats have a 51-49 majority.

If passed by the Senate, the revised authorization would also have to be approved by the House. Bush would then either have to sign it or Congress would have to override his veto for it to go into effect -- and it is far from clear such a measure could attract enough support to survive a veto.

CHANGED SITUATION In October 2002, Congress authorized Bush to take military action in Iraq primarily because of what the Bush administration said was a threat of weapons of mass destruction. At that time, Republicans controlled the House and the Democrats had a slim majority in the Senate.

No such weapons were found after the March 2003 invasion, but the Bush administration said U.S. troops would remain to help Iraq become a democracy.

With the conflict now fueled by sectarian violence and an insurgency, the 2002 authorization is no longer relevant, said one aide. ''The conditions it spelled out - the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein -- are no longer there.'' ''We have to replace it with something because we still have troops in Iraq,'' he said. ''The logic of it is pretty compelling. It is crazy for the president to carry on like this when the authority for the situation no longer exists.'' Last week the House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution against Bush's plans to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq to enhance security in Baghdad and Anbar province.

But most of Bush's fellow Republicans in the Senate united around a procedural tactic to stop the measure on Saturday.

Most Republicans have shown no interest in rewriting the 2002 authorization for the war. On Sunday, Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, a junior member of the Republican leadership, said it would ''doom'' the war effort now to try to restrict US troops to a support role.

Democrats generally favor starting to bring US troops home but differ on how quickly and under what circumstances this should happen. In the House of Representatives, Democratic leaders are grappling with proposals to put new limits on the US war effort in Iraq by attaching conditions to Bush's request for around 100 billion dollars in new funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

REUTERS SAM RK2145