While most people's focus at the moment is on whether the House leadership's version of the Iraq war supplemental appropriation can pass the House tomorrow, it's also important to look a couple of steps down the road.
Some have argued that compromising with "Blue Dogs" to get restrictive language and a mandate for eventual withdrawal into the House version of the bill is pointless because a supplemental with those restrictions will never pass the Senate. A recent development suggests otherwise: the New York Times reports that Ben Nelson, the conservative Democratic Senator from Nebraska, has agreed to support a Senate supplemental with restrictive language. By my vote count, this gives a supplemental with a mandate for (eventual) withdrawal a good chance of passing.
More below the fold...
A good baseline for Senate vote counts on Iraq is the Senate vote on S.J. Res. 9. S.J. Res. 9 contained the following substantive portion:
a) Transition of Mission- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (b).
(b) Commencement of Phased Redeployment From Iraq- The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:
(1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.
(2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.
(3) Conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
(c) Comprehensive Strategy- Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
(d) Reports Required- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the progress made in transitioning the mission of the United States forces in Iraq and implementing the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq as required under this section.
That is, S.J. Res. 9 put in a semi-hard deadline of March 2008 for withdrawal. In that sense, it was roughly similar to the language that has been proposed for the House supplemental.
The House supplemental deadline is "harder" in that the mandatory language applies to the completion of the withdrawal as well as its commencement: under the House bill, after the completion of a withdrawal period that at the absolute latest runs from March 2008 to September 1, 2008, the Secretary of Defense "may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than" a few limited purposes roughly analogous to those listed in S.J. Res. 9. S.J. Res. 9 was "softer" in that it only mandated the beginning date for a withdrawal, with the end date for withdrawal given as a "goal". On the other hand, S.J. Res. 9 had a much faster timeline, mandating a withdrawal that would begin four months after enactment and conclude in March 2008, rather than (as the House bill does) madating a withdrawal that would begin in March 2008 if the President chooses to postpone it to the maximum extent possible by certifying that the Iraqi government has met certain benchmarks. So as a first approximation, the two bills can be considered of roughly equivalent stringency.
The vote on S.J. Res. 9 was 48 votes in favor, 50 against, and 2 not voting. (Passage would have required 60 votes because of a deal entered into to avert a Republican filibuster, which similarly would have required 60 voted to defeat.) All the Republicans, plus Lieberman, voted against, except for Gordon Smith of Oregon, who voted in favor, and John McCain, who missed the vote. All the Democrats voted in favor, except for Tim Johnson, who missed the vote, and two who crossed over to vote no with the Rs: Mark Pryor of Arkansas and, crucially, Ben Nelson.
But Ben Nelson, according to the Times, now says he'll support a Senate version of the supplemental that includes restrictive language along the lines of what was in S.J. Res. 9. Ben Nelson has historically been much more of a conservative and generally unreliable vote for the Democratic leadership's agenda than Mark Pryor has been, so it seems to me fairly likely that if Ben Nelson is returning to the fold on this, we can get Pryor back as well.
If we can keep Gordon Smith, that would give us a 50-49 victory in Tim Johnson's absence, or 51-49 if he makes it back. (Cheney can't vote to create a tie, only to break one.) While it's always dangerous to rely on Republican consistency, Smith is up for reelection in 2008, in a blue state: Oregon voted 51% Kerry - 47% Bush in 2004, 47.0% Gore - 46.5% Bush - 5% Nader in 2000. He would set himself up for an awful lot of nasty ads about flip-flopping if he went from voting yes on S.J. Res. 9 to voting no on the supplemental, or voting yes on an amendment to strip out the restrictive language from the supplemental. (That latter possibility is assuming Reid even allows amendments, rather than using his power as majority leader to "fill the tree" and prevent amendment of the bill on the floor once it emerges from committee.)
Admittedly the Republicans have the power, in theory, to filibuster the whole supplemental, and 51 votes is far short of the 60 we'd need for cloture. But it would be quite awkward for the Republicans to filibuster the troop funding that their own President has said is so desperately needed. In that case, they would be the ones "not supporting the troops". While one can often go wrong underestimating Republican brazenness, I think there's a good chance that they would have to cave in and allow the "up-or-down vote" they used to be so fond of. At the very least, their failure to do so should represent a significant political victory for Democrats.
The next step after Senate passage of a supplemental with a withdrawal mandate, assuming that a supplemental with a withdrawal mandate has already passed the House, would be a conference committee to resolve the differences between the details of the restrictions in the two houses' versions. Now that Democrats control the conference committees, a bill that goes into conference with two versions that both contain some form of withdrawal mandate won't come out of conference weaker than both original versions, as it might have under the Republicans; it's hard to predict exactly what language will emerge, but if there are withdrawal mandates going in, there will be one coming out. So if the Senate does pass a supplemental that includes a withdrawal mandate, some such mandate will actually make it to Bush's desk.
What happens when the supplemental gets to the President's desk with a withdrawal mandate to which he objects is unclear and probably a topic for another diary, but getting such a bill to his desk would represent substantial progress no matter what happened afterwards. At the very least, even if Bush managed to veto it and get unconditional (but likely shorter-term) funding by successfully "playing chicken" against Congress with our troops' lives in the balance, it would be clearly established that Congress wanted to wind down the war and Bush was the one standing in the way.