Senator Warner and Senator Frist, in offering their cut-n-paste amendment on Iraq oversight yesterday, went on record opposing any American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Ever. There's really no other way to look at what they did.
Read the text of the amendments: Levin Amendment and Warner Amendment. Most people are focusing, with pretty good reason, on the clause that calls for:
A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.
This was the final clause of the Democratic (Levin) amendment, and it was deleted from the Republican one (Warner). The rest of the bill is mostly a complete copy of the Democratic bill. But there's one other crucial difference that casts the whole debate in a different light ...
Frist and Warner spin the deletion of the clause above as a rejection of a "Democrat cut-n-run" strategy of asking for specific dates (as opposed to Frist/Warner's "cut-n-paste" legislative strategy ... sorry, couldn't resist). That spin is, with allowances for the partisan rhetoric, at least a valid explanation for the deleted clause. Democratic Senators tried to get a specific, but flexible, timeline in place, and the GOP tried to head that off by offering an amendment that had everything but that. OK. That's the power of a majority party. A minority party can't get all it wants. I'm not going to get into all the reasons why Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong on that specific argument. Because the real fault line can actually be found elsewhere in the document, in a word change that most are not focusing on.
Here's the Democratic language:
United States military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and the people of Iraq should be so advised
And here's the Republican language:
United States military forces should not stay in Iraq any longer than required and the people of Iraq should be so advised
In a document that is a cut-n-paste of the Democratic version, this change in word choice is significant. It indicates an active effort on the part of the GOP leadership. And it's telling as all hell, imo.
The Democratic version, while not setting a specific date, is still clear in its intent. "The United States military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely." It's a clearly worded statement repudiating a permanent military presence in Iraq.
The Republican version, on the other hand, is stripped of all meaning. Now, the US military "should not stay in Iraq any longer than required." That's a completely meaningless phrase. Required by whom? For what?
This is no longer a dispute over the efficacy and wisdom of calling for specific-but-flexible dates for US troop withdrawal, it's a disagreement over the desirability of withdrawal at all. The Republican version strips from the amendment any call for a withdrawal at any point in the future, and replaces it with meaningless platitudes. Since this is the only new language in the bill as far as I can see, it's very deliberate and important. The GOP could easily have left the "should not stay indefinitely" language in the bill, while stripping out the other clause, if their only objection was to the setting of specific timetables.
But they didn't. So we're left with the conclusion that their real objection is to promising a withdrawal at any point in the future. To put it in the starkest, most literal terms: they don't want to promise that American troops won't be there indefinitely.
That's a big difference between the parties, and I think Democrats would be wise to highlight that difference. The American people do not want our troops there forever. And there's probably no act so simple that would have such a positive effect in Iraq as the US government repudiating a permanent military presence.
For political and policy reasons, Democrats need to concentrate on this fault line and push on it.
