On November 30, 2011, Sen Jeff Merkley (D-OR) stood on the Senate floor to speak on behalf of an amendment he and other Senators had offered to require the President to develop a plan for an expedited withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.
After his speech, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) bitingly criticized the amendment as “another accelerated plan [that] would obviously have the result of even greater risk to the men and women in the military.”
A few moments after railing against the provision, McCain called for a voice vote, and it was approved. It was a stunning and unexpected victory for critics of the war in Afghanistan.
Five months earlier, 27 Senators signed a letter circulated by Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tom Udall (D-NM) urging President Obama to order a “sizable and sustained” withdrawal of troops.
The effort demonstrated that a significant bloc of Senators wanted to see the American military effort in Afghanistan wind down.
The effort demonstrated that a significant bloc of Senators wanted to see the American military effort in Afghanistan wind down.
The 27 Senators, though still a minority, represented an increase from the 18 Senators who on May 27, 2010, supported a Feingold (D-WI) amendment to require a plan for the safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.
While it is impossible to determine the impact of the letter, shortly afterwards the President announced the withdrawal of 33,000 troops from Afghanistan, but said it would be three more years – the end of 2014 – before all combat troops came home.
The next opportunity to pressure the President would most likely occur whenever the annual defense authorization bill came to the Senate floor. The defense bill traditionally has been considered by the full Senate for as much as a week or two and has been a vehicle for votes on many defense, foreign policy and even non-defense issues such as hate crimes, concealed fire arms and low income heating assistance.
Our band of activists/strategists working the amendment was quite small. The groups included Council for a Livable World, Win Without War, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Peace Action, Peace Action West and moveon.org. Matthew Hoh, a veteran of the Afghan conflict, supplied the expertise on the war. Other organizations, understandably, were focusing on other critical issues such as the looming federal budget sequester, new rules for treating detainees, sanctions on Iran’s central bank and reducing the nuclear weapons budget.
The strategy for the Afghanistan amendment was to devise language that would attract the largest possible Senate vote. Writing the amendment was not easy. Months before, as the House was set to consider the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Authorization Bill, House Members went back and forth for many days before settling on language requiring a plan and a timeframe for an accelerated transition of military operations from U.S. to Afghan authorities. The McGovern (D-MA)-Jones (R-NC) amendment offered for a vote on May 26 was narrowly defeated 204-215.
Some complained that the amendment should require an accelerated timetable rather than urge it. However, stronger language would have failed, and failed badly and set back the campaign. Members of Congress are willing to prod the President to take action on national security issues, but reluctant to take charge of a war effort. It is the same reason that many Members had criticized the Administration’s undeclared and unauthorized war in Libya but were not willing to block American action.
Since Teddy Roosevelt served as President, there has been a traditional view that a strong President uses his “bully pulpit” to bend the public and Congress to his will. But Congress uses its own version of the bully pulpit to influence the President’s policies.
In the Senate, this new legislative effort was designed to show increased numbers of war skeptics from the 18 Senators who voted for an amendment in 2010 and 27 Senators who signed the letter earlier in the year.
Shortly after the June letter, three Senators – Merkley, Udall and Sen. Ron Paul (R-KY) authored an OpEd in the New York Times which commended the President for beginning the troop withdrawal, but said the deadline three years away was too long:
“We believe the United States is capable of achieving this goal by the end of 2012. America would be more secure and stronger economically if we recognized that we have largely achieved our objectives in Afghanistan and moved aggressively to bring our troops and tax dollars home . . . In light of our considerable national needs, both security and domestic, we urge the president to bring our troops home at last.”
A few weeks before the defense bill came up, Senator Merkley had to make a decision: would his earlier letter on troops stand as the most that could be accomplished in 2012 or should he initiate new action to further press the President. He chose action. And he started preparing early, as the Senate schedule is totally unpredictable, and bills appear and disappear on the Senate floor in rapid order.
On November 17, after Senate consideration of the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill stalled, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) suddenly turned to the defense bill. By then, Merkley, Tom Udall, Paul and Lee had agreed to offer a bi-partisan amendment to prod the President to submit a timetable for an accelerated troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The activist groups joined with the Merkley office on an inside-outside strategy. In the Merkley office, the Senator, his chief of staff Michael Zamore, legislative director Jeremiah Baumann and senior policy advisor Will White began reaching out to colleagues at the Senator and staff level. By the time of the vote, Senator Merkley had spoken to almost two dozen Senators, and his staff many more. Periodically, the four would compare notes to see where Senators stood.
The outside groups fed in their intelligence reports after contacting Senate offices directly and through supporters’ e-mails and phone calls that they generated. These messages helped to focus Senate offices’ attention on one of 380 amendments offered to the defense bill.
Merkley, though in his first term, understands the legislative process. While many Members of Congress think they are legislating by standing up to offer an amendment and give a great speech, they neglect the outreach so critical to winning. But Merkley had proved his legislative bone fides as Oregon House speaker where he worked with members of both parties to pass bills and he knows the Senate’s mores.
Things got confusing on the Senate floor when Merkley was forced to introduce several versions of the amendment, both in anticipation of cloture being invoked on the bill which would limit what kind of amendments could be offered and when other offices suggested wording changes. Senators agreed to co-sponsor different versions of the amendment, which confused things further.
But the tide began flowing toward the amendment. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was the first Senator to join on beyond the first four, and in the end 22 Senators co-sponsored, including several who had been unwilling to sign the June letter. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), a blue dog Democrat, was an early co-sponsor.
Obtaining the support of Sen. Mark Begich’s (D-AK) was crucial, because he was the member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who had authored the section of the bill that was being amended. After speaking to Merkley, the Alaska Senator joined on.
The momentum accelerated when earlier on November 30, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked to add four words to the amendment: the President should consult “NATO and Coalition allies” in devising his plan. That was the first public hint that a carefully worded amendment could win the Chairman’s support.
There were suggestions that Majority Leader Reid might support the amendment as well. If Levin and Reid had been willing to vote for the amendment, it is likely that most Democratic Senators would have climbed on board, bringing the amendment vote total goal up from 35 to 45 or perhaps more.
A great unknown was how many Republicans would have voted “aye.” Paul and Lee were co-sponsors, but others were unknown and their offices were giving few hints. By the time of the vote, there were perhaps 18 Republicans and a dozen Democrats whose positions were not clear.
Thus when the amendment was offered, neither Merkley nor McCain could be sure of the votes. When offered a choice, Merkley chose a certain voice vote victory to a roll of the dice on a recorded vote. McCain similarly could not be sure of defeating the amendment, and perhaps some of his colleagues up for election in 2012 did not want to be forced to take a stand.
In a moment, it was over. There were only a handful of Senators on the Senate floor when the vote was taken. McCain’s booming “no” to the amendment came loud and clear although he had proposed the voice vote.
The amendment had succeeded beyond its proponents’ wildest imagination.
The vote is a significant milestone in the long battle to end U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. It demonstrates that there is a rising tide in United States Senate and around the country to end the large-scale U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Newspaper articles, such as a Reuters story, suggested that the vote signaled a growing impatience in Congress.
In a blog, Senator Merkley pointed out: “Never before has the U.S. Senate urged the President to speed up the process of bringing our troops home. The last similar amendment, in 2010, garnered only 18 votes. This year in June, 27 Senators signed on to a letter asking the President to draw down troops. The tide is turning . . . Yesterday’s vote shows that a smart, engaged, fierce grassroots effort can make a difference.”
This vote paralleled a Rasmussen survey taken November 28-29, 2011 that found rising public support for an early exit from Afghanistan. Fifty-nine percent of likely voters nationwide want the troops to come home either immediately or within a year and only 29% oppose a firm timetable.
The vote sets up new efforts in 2012 to bring the troops home. Should a Republican be sworn in as President in 2013 and abandon the 2014 end-date, Senators of both parties are now on record as opposing an extended war.
This opposition is important, as President Hamid Karzai told a conference in Germany that his country would need political and military support for at least another decade, and financial assistance until 2030.
