A Smart Antiwar Movement Would Target John Warner

We're going to see a lot of kabuki theater throughout the summer with regard to Iraq. The Democrats are going to push some more bills to the floor that would de-authorize the 2002 war resolution, for example, or ensure troop readiness before deployment. They're not likely to pass with a veto-proof majority. Republicans are going to complain that Democrats are criticizing the surge and it hasn't even started yet (the surge's start date will be sometime in January 2009, so shut your trap until then). And the media won't give a damn until September and the report from the battlefield.

Which leaves the question of what the antiwar movement, in conjunction with the majority of Americans who want this occupation to end, should do between now and then. I think the answer is clear - they need to pull a Camp Casey on John Warner.

Warner is an elder statesman in the Republican Party, and on military issues he is often seen as a bellweather by the media. Since politicians in both parties take their cues from that media, a flip in position by Warner on the war would probably cause a crumbling in support. This AP story, which shows how Warner has tried to play it both ways on the war, is indicative of the CW.

For months, Sen. John Warner has been looked upon as the man who could — at any moment — tip the Iraq debate on Capitol Hill because of his influence on a Republican caucus growing increasingly uneasy about the war.

But since October, when he declared that the war was "drifting sideways" and expressed grave concerns about the mounting death toll, the Virginia Republican has presented only a mild challenge to President Bush's policy. Warner has opposed binding legislation on troop deployments. And at the behest of his party's leaders, he's voted against advancing his own proposal registering skepticism on the U.S. military strategy.

His strongest action to date was legislation that would restrict U.S. aid to Iraq if Baghdad fails to implement certain political and security changes. At White House direction, Warner agreed to let the president waive the requirement.

Now, with Bush's troop buildup in Iraq not showing the results many hoped, Warner said in an interview he is willing to stick by Bush at least until August after visiting troops in Baghdad.

"Following that, I will come back and publicly more fully discuss my views," he said.

He's been allowed to kick the can down the road because there hasn't been a lot of pressure exerted on him. But he's coming into a re-election year. He sees the winds shifting in Virginia with the victory of Jim Webb in 2006. He's trying to thread the needle between a need to follow a rational course on Iraq and remain loyal to his party at the same time. There's no reason he should be allowed to do so. You have to pick a side. In the interview, he actually said this:

Last week, Warner said he did not think he backed down too easily and he continues to keep heat on the president's policies. He noted at least two private meetings with Bush in which he expressed his concerns about the war.

Warner also pointed to legislation he wrote, added to the 2007 war spending bill, that allows Bush to condition U.S. aid on Baghdad's ability to meet certain benchmarks, if he wants to do so.

"I think some of the steps I've taken were slightly bold," he said. "Maybe not as confrontational as some of the measures that were rejected, but I don't hesitate to take the steps that I feel are in the best interest of the country, the security of the country, and the uniformed (service members). Absolutely not."

John Warner. Slightly Bold for America.

Clearly, Warner would provide cover to other Republicans to break with the White House. Even though that's simply conventional wisdom, I do believe it's the view of the media, which would pipe that across the nation and would particularly have an audience on Capitol Hill. When John Murtha broke on the war it became front-page news for weeks and energized the antiwar sentiment in the country. Support for the policy has never recovered, but the Congress has lagged far behind the public. A Warner split would galvanize the nation. And I believe he's the only public figure in the Republican Party that would have such an impact.

I don't know if it's even possible to pressure him, but it certainly would be more hopeful than pressuring the President, who is far more isolated. If he sees an antiwar movement in his face every day for the entire summer, perhaps he can be moved to vote his conscience. He should not be allowed to remain silent on the biggest issue facing the country for three months until he's ready to be slightly bold once again. Fire up, Virginia. It's time for Warner to make a decision.