If you've ever spent quality time trying to move an agenda through Congress, you know that moving an agenda isn't just about lobbying individual members. You need a "champion" for your issue. The champion introduces your bill. The champion recruits other offices to sign up. The champion introduces an amendment that carries the same idea as the bill and lobbies other members to vote for it. The champion circulates letters to other offices. The champion raises the profile of your issue in the media.
When Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold lost his bid for reelection, advocates working to end the war in Afghanistan lost their champion in the Senate. It was Feingold's office that introduced the bill, introduced the amendment, circulated the letter, led the lobbying of other offices, led the charge in the media.
Now, California Senator Barbara Boxer has reintroduced Feingold's bill requiring the president to establish a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan -- a timetable with an end date. So far, Senators Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Sherrod Brown have signed on as co-sponsors of Senator Boxer's bill.
The re-introduction of this bill is extremely timely and important, for two reasons.
First, the White House is currently debating how to follow through on the president's promise to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July. Will it be a mere token withdrawal, signifying nothing, as the Pentagon has demanded? Or will it be a "significant and sizable reduction" that sends a clear signal to everyone in Afghanistan and the U.S. that U.S. troops are on their way out, as the Democratic Party has demanded?
In this context, it's very important for senators to speak up. And signing on to a bill that says that the president has to establish a timetable for U.S. withdrawal that has an end date is an essential way to speak up.
When a senator signs on to a bill like the Boxer bill, that senator is basically communicating two things: First, I am unhappy with the status quo, and I think that the administration needs more pressure from people who think the way I do; second, if an amendment is introduced that contains the same basic idea as this bill, I am likely to vote for that amendment.
It's this second function -- stalking horse for an amendment -- that is the principal reason that the text of the bill matters. Otherwise, the senators are basically signing a piece of paper that says, "I am concerned about what the administration is doing and I think that the administration needs more pressure from people who think like me."
Sometimes, in a situation like this, some folks who don't understand or haven't thought through Washington dynamics get hung up on how "strong" they think a bill is. But in so doing, they fundamentally misunderstand what really matters in the situation.
Getting co-sponsors for a bill like this is analogous to organizing a demonstration. Suppose you organize a demonstration (I organized one on Monday). After the demonstration, you see your friend who wasn't there. Your friend says, "how did the demonstration go?" You say, it went great! There were 60 people there, two TV stations, a radio station, and a newspaper. You don't say, it went great! The signs and chants were really militant. What the signs and chants were are two of the least important things about the demonstration, in terms of its impact. What matters is: Who was there?
Similarly, in a situation like this, the actual text of the bill is often one of the least important things about it. What matters is: who signed it, what message did they communicate. Dick Durbin is number two in the Senate leadership, close to President Obama. He signed the bill. That matters.
Furthermore, in this particular case, the question of an actual end date for the deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is absolutely crucial right now, because the administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth about what is going to happen in 2014. On the one hand: The administration is saying that the U.S. is leaving. On the other hand, the U.S. is trying to negotiate a "Permanent Bases Agreement" with the government of Afghanistan, an agreement the U.S. hopes to conclude by July. But, as the New York Times pointed out, if the U.S. insists on keeping troops in Afghanistan past 2014, that is likely to scuttle peace talks with the Afghan Taliban, for whom the departure of foreign forces from the country is a red line in negotiations. So the question of ending the war hinges crucially on setting a definite end date for the departure of U.S. troops.
Thus, if you want to end the war in Afghanistan, an essential question to ask yourself is this: Have my senators signed the Boxer bill?
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
If Barabara Boxer wants to challenge Obama in the primaries on that basis, I will surely vote for her - any sane American would.
The last time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they hosted, supported, and protected al Qaeda, who used that base and freedom to launch the 9/11 attacks. There is little reason to believe that the same thing would not happen again if they succeed in regaining control over Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is to prevent a Taliban takeover until the Afghans can prevent a takeover on their own (or force some other favorable end). It seems that the effort is directly in line with keeping us safer.
Since you disagree, I am interested in your take on the threat posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban. Do you feel they are not, in fact, a threat? Especially if the Taliban again ruled Afghanistan? If you agree that they are a threat, do you have an alternative strategy to address that threat?
-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518
Right on Ms. Boxer, I'm glad I voted for you.