The second-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, has drafted a resolution that would give military commanders — instead of President Bush or Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld — decision-making authority over when American troops should return home.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), the vice chairman of the Armed Services panel and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, told Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) Monday of his plans to introduce the resolution shortly. ~The Hill

His challenger, Adm. Joe Sestak (Ret.), must be making Weldon nervous if he is willing to propose something as outlandish as this.  As you might expect, there are already those fretting about Seven Days in May all over again.  As I read this, this is about as powerful a no-confidence motion as any I have seen coming from the GOP side.  It announces that one of the leading Congressmen on the Armed Forces Committee has no confidence in the military judgement of the President or the Secretary of Defense, which is a roundabout way of saying that they are incompetent but saves him from having to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation or criticising Mr. Bush personally.  This is a surprisingly radical move, which smells of electoral desperation:

“They determine the timetable for bringing the troops back home,” said Weldon of the commanders. “There’s no armchair politician back here making those decisions, whether it’s an elected member of Congress or even the secretary of the defense.”

The resolution is a bold step and goes farther than what many Democrats have advocated. Earlier this year, 37 Senate Democrats voted for a resolution that instructed the president to speed up the transition of U.S. forces to a “limited presence,” but still left the timetable for withdrawal firmly in the president’s power. The Democratic amendment did not go so far as to empower generals to set criteria for departure.

Think about that: no “armchair politicians” are wanted in the decisionmaking process, just the military men who know what they’re talking about (by implication, the civilians don’t know anything).  It sounds like somebody is suffering from a strain of Vietnam Syndrome.  But as far-out as it is, it provides Sestak with an unusual opening: to come out against this proposal to show that he believes in “civilian control of the military” (which is not actually in any real danger here, but which plays well with people who don’t pay much attention) and to paint Weldon as someone who is advocating an unusual or even irresponsible proposal in a bid to be re-elected. 

Watch for the warbloggers to go insane when this comes to the floor; prepare for the “Et tu, Curt?” editorials from hawks at National Review; expect the pained cries of Democrats who warn against removing civilian control and oversight; brace yourselves for more bad Seven Days in May comparisons.  Behold as the GOP majority keeps going down in flames.