The Warner Plan: Should Democrats Support?

by Joel Thompson

Republican Sen. John Warner appealed to President Bush on Sunday to withdraw some troops from Iraq by Christmas to illustrate to the Iraqi government that US presence is not open-ended in that country.

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Warner revealed that his message to Bush following a recent trip to Iraq was, “put some teeth behind your words.” Those words, that Bush’s troop surge was meant to create conditions for the Iraqi government to solidify and not as a long term commitment, have not prompted the government of Nouri al-Maliki to solve its differences.

While Warner’s proposal is modest – he does not stipulate how many troops should be withdrawn, leaving that number to the president – the interview still grabbed headlines. Mainly, Warner’s response to a question from Tim Russert on whether or not he would support a Congressional bill for troop withdrawal should Bush reject the Warner plan drew the most attention:

“I don’t say that as a threat, but I say that is an option we all have to consider.”


Republican Sen. John Warner gives NBC's Tim Russert his thoughts on Iraq

The Associated Press’s Hope Yen seized on that quote with the headline, “Warner May Back Democrats on Withdrawal.” But as Warner, himself, correctly points out, a Congressional bill on that matter is essentially a non-starter, as Bush would veto the measure:

“There is the opportunity for Congress to do it, but mind you, look at how they would have to do it. They would have to vote, let’s say, some type of troop program, taking away from the president really his constitutional power to make those decisions, then that would have to go to the president. He could veto it; then it comes back for 67 votes. I don’t think the president will be in any way overridden in his veto.”

So the question instead should be: Should Democrats be rallying behind the Warner plan as an achievable alternative?

Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton has introduced, alongside Sen. Robert Byrd, the Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act of 2007. According to her website:

“The legislation will propose October 11, 2007 - the five year anniversary of the original resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq - as the expiration date for that resolution. The President would be required to come to Congress to seek new authority. Following deauthorization, Senator Clinton would not support any new legislation that did not start to remove our troops from the middle of this sectarian civil war.”

While sensible, the bill would not garner the necessary support among GOP senators to gain a 2/3 override of a Bush veto. That message received further enforcement from Sen. Lindsey Graham, who spoke out against any reduction of the surge, following his two-week service in Iraq as a member of the Air Force Reserve.

Similarly, John Edwards and Barack Obama have included in their platforms plans to legislate the end of active US troop involvement.

Warner’s proposal, however, requires no such Congressional measures but represents an opportunity for both sides of the aisle to pressure the president to take action. If nothing else, the reduction, on whatever scale, would be a positive step where there have been few.

For this reason, I would like to see Democrats back the Warner plan with an eye toward pressuring the Maliki government to get its act together. Perhaps finally, the Iraqis would take the necessary steps toward determining a destiny befitting of the more than 3700 American troops that have died there.

Only then would total American withdrawal become a possibility. Otherwise, we are forced to wait until January of 2009 and the change in leadership it should bring.