The Webb-Hagel Amendment will be voted on this afternoon as part of the Defense Authorization bill, but due to the fact that the Republicans are filibustering basically every substantive Democratic amendment that could actually have an impact, it will be necessary for Jim Webb (D-VA) to get 60 votes for his proposal. His amendment, which received 56 votes earlier this summer — four short of overcoming the filibuster — requires that any troops get a stay at home at least equal to the length of their tour of duty in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. A small change from the amendment this summer, he has added a provision to let the policy start 120 days after enactment in order to let the generals in charge make the necessary planning changes.
Realizing that this could be the one that could get over the 60 vote hump, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has offered a toothless alternative that states it is the “Sense of the Senate” that a month home for every month away policy for troops is the preferable policy, but having absolutely no enforcement mechanism. This is exactly the type of strategy that the Republicans love to use — have a fake vote that gives them cover, but defeat the substantive policy that actually would accomplish something.
Graham and John McCain (R-AZ) as well as other Republican Senators have argued against the Webb amendment because: 1) It is interfering (“meddling”) with the military leaders ability to make strategic decisions in the field, 2) It is micro-managing a war that is not in the proper role of congress, with McCain even claiming that it is probably an unconstitutional act, and 3) It will lessen the ability of the military to do what it needs to do on the ground to win, and thus put the people who are in the combat theater in greater danger.
Webb countered in a short speech on the floor, stating that a similar situation occurred during the Korean War and that Congress stepped in and demanded appropriate training for U.S. soldiers when military leaders wanted to get them into the field before the usual training had been completed.
While John Warner (R-VA) took to the Senate floor and acknowledged the benefits of the Webb amendment and the positive intent of its author, he stated that he will oppose it due to the fact that his discussions with military leaders have made it clear to him that they couldn’t be able to properly transition to such a policy for about a year, even if ordered, without inhibiting their needs.
This is the amendment that will demonstrate whether there is any real dent in the Republicans’ obstructionist strategy on the floor of the Senate. The critical element will be whether Webb and Hagel can overcome the knee-jerk war supporters like Graham and be able to gain votes, despite the cover of the worthless amendment that he offers as so-called political cover. This vote will determine the top number of Republicans who can be counted on to assist in a change in direction in Iraq. If Webb doesn’t get 60 votes, then it is unlikely that any real change will be allowed by the 40 or so Republicans preventing any real change in policy.
The question for those Republicans who vote against the Webb amendment is: What is more important to you — the President and the war planners, or the troops on the ground? Are you really supporting the troops if all you do is talk about how great a job they are doing and how we should continue this failed policy? Or would a policy that would at least slightly lessen the burden on their families, their psyches, their finances and their health. All members acknowledged that the “ideal” situation would be to give every soldier or marine a month home for a month in the war, but for some reason they must continue to be pawns in this fiasco, as politicians who insist that “Victory is the only strategy” and praise the troops that, in the last analysis, are being abused.
I don’t know how they sleep at night — but if they vote against Webb this afternoon, they certainly can’t say they support the troops.
