Nonproliferation, Arms Control, and Disarmament

Senator Kerry walks to the Senate floor during debate over ratification of the New START treaty. Jonathan Ernst/Courtesy Reuters. My colleague, Kay King, wrote a Council Special Report last fall on Congress’s dysfunctional role in national security policy. In light of the passage of the New START treaty in last month’s lame duck-session and with the 112th Congress set to convene tomorrow, I asked her for her thoughts looking both backward and forward. The Senate surprised many of its critics when it passed the New START treaty during the lame-duck session, placing U.S. national security interests above partisan politics.  In voting to support the resolution of ratification, thirteen Republicans joined fifty-eight Democrats, refusing to politicize what has generally been viewed as a relatively modest treaty to reduce U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear stockpiles. Despite some heartburn among GOP senators about timing, the vote proved to be a win-win for all involved. Most important, it represented a good “start” toward correcting a nearly thirty-year deterioration in Congress’s national security role, demonstrating that consultation between the executive and legislative branches, careful consideration, and debate culminating in an up-or-down vote can occur in the twenty-first century Senate. The vote was a victory for treaty proponents on both sides of the aisle, particularly Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) Chairman John Kerry (D-MA), who led the fight in the Senate, debating opponents, managing amendments, coordinating with the administration, and ultimately orchestrating the bipartisan coalition that voted in favor of the treaty. It was a triumph for Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member of the SFRC and the Senate’s leading expert on arms control and nuclear non-proliferation issues.  He skillfully addressed the range of concerns raised by many of his GOP colleagues and stood firm when the Senate Republican leadership sought to undercut his expertise and authority by trying to delay the vote. It was a win for the twelve other GOP senators who voted for the treaty after raising concerns and winning concessions that strengthened the final product.  It was a gain too for those twenty-six lawmakers who voted against the treaty.  Although they did not defeat the treaty, they did obtain commitments from the Obama administration to modernize the nuclear arsenal and laid the groundwork for what is likely to be a much tougher future battle over the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Of course, the administration succeeded in securing President Obama’s most important foreign policy objective for 2010, relying on the significant powers of persuasion of three Capitol Hill veterans – the president himself, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  The administration’s early-and-often consultations with Senate leaders on both sides of the aisle proved that consultation is worth the time and effort. Most of all, treaty approval was a victory for the American people, who will be more secure thanks to the New START treaty’s provisions.  As important, they witnessed a U.S. Senate that embraced its national security role -- taking six-plus months to review the treaty, holding more than twenty hearings and briefings, advancing the treaty out of the SFRC on a bipartisan vote, and debating it over a period of eight days on the Senate floor before a final vote. Despite some dilatory tactics that, if successful, would have kept the thirteen departing senators of the 111th Congress who had been part of the half-year long deliberative process from voting, and instead allowed newly-elected senators to step in, the outcome demonstrated that partisan differences can be bridged in the national interest. Unfortunately, such cooperation has been a rare occurrence in recent years, particularly on matters such as arms control that are of little interest to the American voter. The potential for gridlock still looms large as was demonstrated by the raft of end-of-session filibusters that prevented the New START treaty from reaching the Senate floor until the very last minute and that brought the FY2011 defense authorization bill and the “don’t ask don’t tell” votes to the brink of defeat at the hands of the legislative calendar.  In addition, the need for supermajorities on even routine matters resulted in zero budget or appropriations bills getting approved by Congress in 2010. So, despite its institutional accomplishment on New START, it is time for the Senate to reform its rules, particularly those pertaining to unlimited debate or filibustering and anonymous holds or secret filibusters.  As Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) recommends, the start of a new Congress is the appropriate time to make rules changes, so tomorrow, when the new 112th Congress convenes, the Senate would serve itself and the country well by amending its rules. Any one of the following changes recently floated by lawmakers and congressional scholars could go a long way toward easing the Senate stalemate: establish a series of cloture votes, reducing the number of votes required to end debate on each subsequent vote; or place the burden on the filibustering senator by compelling him/her to hold the floor, tying up all other business in full view of his colleagues and C-SPAN; or put the onus on filibuster supporters by requiring them to engage in a continuous session and garner forty votes every several hours in order to continue debate; or force the minority to be present by changing the vote requirement for cloture to three-fifths of all senators present and voting; and eliminate anonymous holds (silent filibusters) on legislation and nominees. Such changes would not eliminate the filibuster, thus preserving opportunities for the minority to be heard. They would, however, prevent it from being utilized to completely obstruct action and therefore alleviate the gridlock that has become a hallmark of today’s Senate.  For additional information on Senate rules changes, read the coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, and the Atlantic.

My good friend and former CFR colleague Jim Goldgeier has graciously agreed to share his thoughts on what the Obama administration should do next now that it has pocketed its victory on New START. Jim is professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, a fellow at the Transatlantic Academy, and co-author of America Between the Wars: From 11/9 to 9/11, which I highly recommend. President Barack Obama and his team are rightly savoring their successful effort to gain Senate ratification of the New START treaty. From the outset of his administration, the president has pursued both better relations with Russia and lower nuclear arsenals, and this treaty is an important milestone for him. But let’s step back and take a look at the bigger picture. In their first meeting of April 2009, Obama and Russian president Dmitriy Medvedev issued a joint statement that read, “We, the leaders of Russia and the United States, are ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between our two countries.” But what screams out “1973 détente” like an arms control treaty in the SALT and START mode? It’s how we sought to regulate the Cold War competition. (Sadly, there was much stronger bipartisan support for comparable treaties during the Cold War than there was this week.) In fact, former George W. Bush Pentagon official Douglas Feith, in his Wall Street Journal article seeking to dissuade Senators from voting for new START, wrote that early in the Bush years, “We had concluded that America was deploying far more warheads than necessary, as the Cold War was long over and there was hope of friendlier relations with Russia. We reckoned we could cut our arsenal by approximately two-thirds, and that it was not necessary to condition our reductions on any reciprocal Russian promises. So President Bush announced that the U.S. would make the two-thirds cut on our own. Russia was not our enemy, and given other threats such as North Korea and Iran, there was no sense anymore in making Russia our touchstone for all strategic weapons.” But the Russians wanted a treaty, so the Bush administration signed one. An announcement in the coming year that the United States was ready unilaterally to lower its arsenal to 1000 nuclear warheads and was inviting the Russians to follow would truly be a welcome, bold departure from the tortuous path New START took and move us beyond Cold War mentalities. And the United States could go to such levels without losing the ability to deter any potential nuclear weapons state from launching its warheads against the United States or its allies. After all, we are deterred by a handful of North Korean nuclear weapons. The problem is that it’s easier for a Republican like Bush to go this route than it would be for a Democrat. One can only hope that if Obama were to decide to take such a radical step, Feith and other supporters of unilateral reductions from the previous administration, including former President Bush himself, would stand with him to beat back the inevitable political cries that the president was weak on national security. Given the drama surrounding New START, it’s the only way to go to the seriously lower levels of nuclear weapons the president wants.

I asked my colleague, Chris Tuttle, a Capitol Hill veteran, for his quick reaction to the Senate’s approval of the New START Treaty. Here are his thoughts: In the past week, thanks to the sluggish pre-holiday news cycle, we’ve all been treated to a exhaustive blow-by-blow account of Senate Democrats’ lame-duck endeavor to get the sixty-seven votes needed to ratify the New START treaty between the United States and Russia. Every now and then, the stars align and we get this kind of front-row, Jurgis Rudkus’s-eye view of the United States’ national legislature at work. For those of who have toiled in the fields of the House and Senate, these moments are reminders of day-to-day Capitol Hill life; for casual Congress-watchers, they offer an instructive study of how things get done in Washington. Despite coverage and commentary to the contrary, this episode played out in a way that wasn’t necessarily all that shocking – a number of consistent, informal “rules” governing congressional action were on display, among them: Never underestimate the power of a single member of Congress. While it typically takes a good deal of effort and consensus-building to get something done in Congress, stopping action is a much lighter lift. Jon Kyl proved this here, and while treaty proponents worked to gain his support, when they finally realized they weren’t going to get his backing, their anti-Kyl rhetoric turned pretty shrill. Accusing him of cynically opposing the treaty for dishonorable reasons certainly didn’t weaken his resolve, and probably drew out the process further by turning him from a treaty opponent to an even more impassioned anti-treaty proselytizer. Compromise is what makes the machine run. Treaty ratification is particularly difficult because it largely disallows the use of Congress’ most useful utensil: compromise. Because changes to the body of a treaty typically require new trips to the negotiating table, it becomes a fairly simple up-or-down exercise, and members are left with the ability to revise only the marginally significant resolution of ratification. Without that tool at their disposal, finding common ground becomes that much harder. Expect most members to play coy until forced to take a stand. If Harry Reid had forced this vote in November the outcome would likely have been the same. If nothing else, most senators had concerns about the current lack of a treaty-prescribed verification regime. And all senators knew that if ratification was an uphill slog this year, it would be virtually impossible in the 112th Congress. Some Republicans feared being portrayed as “defectors,” but moderates were even more afraid of the policy outcome that would result from the treaty going down to defeat. For leadership in either party, this shows once again that, if the vote looks close, sometimes it’s best to take the risk, go for broke and force members to take a stand. More often than not on issues like this, which are not purely partisan, you’ll win. All this is not to say that what happened was predictable. It wasn’t. But based on the guidelines above, it wasn’t all that surprising either. Some who have watched this process play out will no doubt point to the whole affair as evidence of a “broken” Congress. It’s not. It’s just how the sausage gets made. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst / courtesy Reuters)

Somewhere up above Dandy Don Meredith is singing "Turn Out the Lights, The Party’s Over." Unless Senators Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl can find some of the magic that graced the Philadelphia Eagles this past weekend in Giants Stadium, the New START Treaty will soon be the supreme law of the land. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Johnny Isaakson (R-GA), Bob Bennett (R-UT), and Bob Corker (R-TN) all jumped on the New START bandwagon yesterday. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) reportedly has told the White House he will vote yes. With undeclared Republicans breaking in favor of New START, the Senate voted 67-28 to invoke cloture and proceed to a vote on the treaty today.  That is seven more votes than the motion needed, and it equals the magic number for passing the resolution of ratification. New START’s passage will be a major victory for the White House, and the news media will cover it that way.  Coming as it will at the end of the lame-duck session of Congress and after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” expect the lede of most political stories going into 2011 to be that Obama has his mojo back. That framing will drive Republicans to distraction.  They will insist, with good reason, that the White House’s decision to fold on the Bush tax cuts makes them the real winners of the lame-duck session.  But in politics as in the rest of life, timing matters. At least two questions come out of the New START vote. The first is whether the splintering of the normally unified Republicans will be repeated on future votes. The Republicans who came out in favor of New START over the past two days did so just after Senators McConnell and Kyl vowed to defeat the treaty. Such developments don’t go unnoticed in Washington. The second is whether debating New START during the lame-duck session poisoned the well on Capitol Hill. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) continues to complain that the timing of the treaty debate disrespects Christmas. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) apparently intends to vote against New START not on the merits but to protest the process by which it has been considered. These complaints probably reflect the passions of the moment mixed with a bit of political theater.  (And some observers would point out that the well seemed poisoned before New START came along.)  But expect Republicans continue complaining about the lame-duck session into 2011.  It’s one way to counter the White House’s message that it is reaching across the partisan aisle. UPDATE: The Senate just voted 71-26 to approve the resolution of ratification for New START. Thirteen Republicans voted for the treaty along with all Senate Democrats. Sens. Kit Bond (R-MO), Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Jim Bunning (R-KY) did not vote on the treaty; all three are retiring at the end of this Congress. My colleague Steve Sestanovich has a First Take up on CFR.org with his assessment of the vote’s fallout (pun intended). (Photo: Jim Young / courtesy Reuters)

The New START Treaty made it through the weekend intact. Opponents offered two so-called killer amendments, and both failed to get fifty-one votes. (A treaty needs sixty-seven votes to pass the Senate; amendments to a treaty need only a majority.) The bad news for the White House is that one of the killer amendments received thirty-seven votes. If treaty opponents can hold those votes, then New START is dead. That is a big if, of course. Senators have been known to use their votes on amendments to give themselves leverage with the White House on other issues or to provide political cover for themselves on a final vote. Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) both have officially come out against New START. McConnell says the treaty could constrain U.S. missile defense and that its verification requirements are too weak. And he doesn’t like having the calendar used to force a vote—“rushing it right before Christmas, it strikes me as trying to jam us.” McConnell’s and Kyl’s opposition could be pivotal. They are, after all, the number one and two figures in the Senate Republican leadership. They have some clout to reel back Republican senators leaning toward a “yes” vote. Peter Baker notes in the New York Times that no arms control treaty has ever passed “without the support of the Senate minority leader.” Administration officials would no doubt observe that is like saying no major league baseball team has ever come back after being down three-games-to-none in the playoffs. It is true until it isn’t. Today the Senate meets in closed session to discuss classified intelligence about New START. Such sessions may or may not provide senators with genuinely new information. But they can provide them with a reason (or excuse) to take a position—or to change one already taken. On that score, the White House couldn’t have liked reading what Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told POLITICO. I announced my support for the treaty a week ago based on the work I’ve done on it in the Armed Services Committee but we’re having a classified briefing [Monday] afternoon and it’s always possible I could learn something new from that, that would cause me to change my mind. The next big step is a cloture vote tomorrow. Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) say they will vote for cloture. So if Democrats stick together they will muster the sixty votes needed to force a vote on Wednesday. Between now and then expect the rhetoric to heat up. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid threw some “chin music” at treaty opponents this weekend, suggesting that they want the bad guys to win. You either want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists or you don’t. Treaty opponents will certainly return the rhetorical favor. One senator to watch will be John McCain (R-AZ). He voted last week to begin debate on New START, but in a floor speech on Thursday he lambasted Russian leaders: How in the world are we going to trust them to adhere to a treaty? When we consider the crimes and abuses of this Russian government, it’s hard to believe this government shares our deepest values. That doesn’t sound like someone about to give New START a thumb’s up. Which way will the vote likely go? The complaints coming from anti-treaty forces about being rushed suggest they are losing. Presumably a “rushed” vote doesn’t bother you if the outcome is going your way. But the outcome is always up in the air on on close votes where senators are feeling intense pressure to hew to a party line. As the saying goes, those who are talking don’t know, and those who know aren’t talking. (Photo: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves a meeting on Capitol Hill about New START in November. Jim Young / courtesy Reuters).

The podcast for the The World Next Week is up. Bob McMahon and I sat down to talk about the U.N. Security Council’s upcoming debate of its Afghanistan mission; the Obama administration’s Afghan strategy review; the congressional budget debates; and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s visit to North Korea. [audio: http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/media/podcast/2010/20101217_TWNW.mp3] The highlights: Although the UN Security Council will be discussing the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission, which it renewed for a year in October, the real action on Afghanistan continues to lie with NATO and Washington. The Obama administration sees "fragile" progress in Afghanistan, but the White House’s strategy for building a stable and effective Afghan government is unclear. The outcome of the sparring on Capitol Hill over the FY11 federal budget remains up in the air, and the fighting could derail action on the New START Treaty. Tensions remain high on the Korean peninsula as analysts wonder whether Seoul will continue to turn the other cheek in the face of repeated provocations by Pyongyang. Bob and I join a host of commentators and news outlets discussing these issues. The Guardian reflects on the direction U.S. policy in Afghanistan may take following the loss of Special Representative Richard Holbrooke, while NPR outlines the complex message the Obama administration is trying to convey with its strategy review.  The Hill covers the battle over earmarks in the omnibus spending bill. The Washington Post outlines Richardson’s goals for his North Korea trip and touches on the governor’s impressive negotiating history. (Photo: Governor Richardson is greeted by a North Korean official upon his arrival. Kyodo Kyodo / courtesy Reuters).

Just as the prospects for the New START Treaty started to look good, they no longer do.  Josh Rogin reports that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) just drew a line in the sand: Kyl said Tuesday he still doesn’t think there’s enough time to complete work on the treaty this year and that he will try to defeat the treaty if it comes up during the lame duck session. “I let the majority leader know that’s an issue for a lot of my colleagues,” Kyl told reporters Tuesday. “And if he does bring it up, I will work very hard to achieve that result, namely that the treaty fails. We will see in the next ten days whether Senator Kyl is William Travis at the Alamo or Gen. Anthony McAullife at the Battle of the Bulge. The other interesting  news in Josh’s post is that New START opponents may try to amend the treaty as a way to kill it.  Their target will be the treaty’s preamble, which notes that an interrelationship exists between offensive and defensive weapons.  Although this is a factual statement and not a constraint, some treaty opponents argue that the language limits the U.S. ability to build missile defenses.  Opponents calculate that an amended preamble would be unacceptable to the Russians, thereby requiring new negotiations or prompting Moscow to walk away from the treaty entirely. Such a “killer amendment” could be very difficult for the White House to fend off during a lame-duck session.  The White House has insisted all along that the preamble is not binding.  If that is the case, opponents will argue, why would anyone object to deleting the language about defensive arms or adding new language unambiguously asserting the U.S. right to build missile defenses as it sees fit?  The White House thought it could avoid this problem because Senate procedure traditionally forbid amendments to preambles.  But the Senate parliamentarian recently ruled that there was no basis for this rule.  So amendments are welcome. The Senate has killed more than forty treaties over the past 200 years under the guise of improving them.  The first treaty consigned to the ash heap of history in this fashion was the King-Hawkesbury Convention with Great Britain in 1803.  (Don’t ask.)  The best-known use of killer amendments came during the debate over the Treaty of Versailles, when Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge decided that the best strategy to kill Woodrow Wilson’s handiwork was to “proceed… by way of amendment and reservation.” Sometimes the best strategy in politics is not to confront your opponent head on but to offer to help him. (Photo: Ria Novosti / courtesy Reuters)

With tensions on the Korean peninsula continuing to arouse U.S. concern, expert Leon Sigal calls for the United States and South Korea to support a peace process and political and economic engagement with North Korea.

WikiLeaks’ cables on North Korea’s missile sales to Iran have raised new concerns about the country’s proliferation activities. Expert Jeffrey Lewis says Pyongyang’s procurement networks pose the biggest threat, and recommends the international community strengthen interdiction measures.

Seven years ago today soldiers in the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division pulled Saddam Hussein from a hole underneath a two-room mud shack on a sheep farm in the town of ad-Dawr, Iraq.  Hussein had an AK-47, some chocolate, and $750,000 in cash when he was caught.  In the words of Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, “he was caught like a rat.” In other developments over the weekend. 1.  New START may get passed before the lame-duck session of Congress ends.  Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have declared their support for New START, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says Senate approval is “very close.” [The Senate first has to pass the legislation extending the Bush tax cuts and then pass the legislation funding the government for the rest of the year.  That means that the lame-duck session will have to be extended beyond this Friday, the 17th, to permit time for floor debate and a vote. President Obama says he is willing to delay his vacation to ensure a vote. 2.  John Cassidy uses his review in the New Yorker of several new books on China to provide a useful historical reminder that America’s embrace of open global markets came only after we became industrial titans who could out compete our rivals.  Before that we liked high tariffs and large-scale government intervention in the economy.  Our current zeal for entrepreneurial spirit tends to forget that entrepreneurs historically have succeeded in the United States not in spite of government but in good part because of government.  The big policy question for us today is what should the 21st century equivalent of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or ARPANET be? 3.  In yesterday’s Washington Post the development economist William Easterly criticized the work of celebrity activists.  Normally I would pass such an article right by, but since I posted on celebrity activists not once but twice last week, I gave it a read.  Easterly levies two main criticisms, neither of which seems particularly compelling.  The first is that Bono and other celebrity activists unlike his hero, John Lennon, seldom challenge political power.  It is not clear, however, why denouncing policymakers is preferable to lobbying them.  Lennon was a pop culture icon, but the impact of his activism was, to be nice about it, minimal.  Easterly’s second criticism is that Bono (and presumably other celebrity activists) doesn’t have the standing to participate in the policy debate. But why should we pay attention to Bono’s or Jolie’s expertise on Africa, any more than we would ask them for guidance on the proper monetary policy for the Federal Reserve? This “credentialism” leaves me cold.  My preference is to analyze the merits of what people propose rather than to worry about their backgrounds.  The irony here is that Easterly admits that the specific policies Bono advocates “are fine moves as far as they go.” 4.  My colleague Stephen Sestanovich just posted a piece taking issue with the triumphalism that has infected much of the coverage of what the WikiLeaks saga says about American diplomacy.  Steve has read and written his fair share of cables.  (I don’t know that any of them have leaked).  He was ambassador-at-large and special adviser to the secretary of state for policy toward the states of the former Soviet Union. (Photo:  Saddam Hussein pauses in Sunday Dec. 14, 2003.  US Military via APTN / AP Photo).

Talks between Iran and the P5+1 ended with plans to meet in Istanbul next month, but the differences between the two sides suggest a long road ahead dotted with meetings that don’t go very far, says Iran expert Robin Wright.

There’s no Friday File this week. The next few days will be devoted to eating turkey and watching football. Three things before I head off: 1. My good friend and frequent co-author, Ivo Daalder, now the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, spoke on Monday about the outcome of NATO’s Lisbon Summit. He reviews the three main strategic components of NATO’s new Strategic Concept and describes how what he calls “NATO 3.0” differs from versions 1.0 and 2.0. 2. Yesterday I hosted a media call on the New Start Treaty with my colleagues Kay King, Vice President for Washington Initiatives, and Micah Zenko, Fellow for Conflict Prevention at CFR’s Center for Preventive Action. Kay and Micah explore the politics of the treaty debate and the consequences of its passage or defeat. 3. The Wall Street Journal reports that grateful people are healthier and happier. So find someone and say thanks. Happy Thanksgiving! (Photo: President Obama pardons "Courage,"  The National Thanksgiving Turkey in 2009. Jason Reed/courtesy Reuters).

I speculated yesterday on why the White House opted for a showdown on the New START Treaty when it lacks the 67 votes needed for victory.  Here are ten reasons why the Republicans won’t blink first: Principle.  Some Republican senators think that New START is a legitimately bad treaty that gives too much away to the Russians. Elections matter.  If you believe that November 2 was a repudiation Obama’s agenda, why support one of his leading foreign policy priorities? President Obama will blink first. The president has drawn lines in the sand before on issues such as Israeli settlements and the public option in health care only to change his mind later.  The best predictor of future performance is past performance. Opposing the treaty has no political downside. To quote Democratic strategist James Carville, “Most people don’t really give a pig’s patootie about a nuclear arms deal with Russia.” Voters don’t punish lawmakers for issues they don’t know or care about it.  Voters who do care about New START aren’t going to pull the lever for Republicans anyway. Opposing the treaty has a political upside. The Republican base is spoiling for a fight, it doubts the wisdom of arms control, and it will likely remember the names of lawmakers who blinked at the first sign of pressure from the White House. A basic law of congressional life:  When in doubt make sure you are on what your constituents regard as the “right” side of an issue. Skepticism about the supposed harmful geopolitical consequences of defeating New START. Treaty supporters are predicting all matters of harm if New START goes kaput.  But administrations always say the sky will fall if their opponents succeed.  Will U.S.-Russian relations really turn on the fate of what even many proponents agree is a modest treaty? Republican senators-elect want to be heard on New START.  The people spoke on November 2.  Why let an arbitrary deadline dictate the pace of a debate over a treaty that will become “the supreme law of the land”?  Why not let the new voices that American elected at the polls have the opportunity to carry their message to Washington? The treaty fight can be used against the president politically.  The economy is sputtering, unemployment is nearly in double digits, and the White House’s top priority is passing an arms control treaty? Skaggs’s Law applies—Or the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Antitreaty Republicans oppose the treaty with far more passion than protreaty Republicans support it.  That means something.  As former Representative David Skaggs (D-Colo.) noted about life on Capitol Hill, "When there are a few people who will die for the issue, and nobody else gets anywhere close to that, they can have their way." Political face—Or what political scientists call audience costs. The spat between the White House and Senate Republicans is now public.  The news media and the blogosphere are itching to declare winners and losers.  If President Obama gets his way, the political momentum shifts.  The story line as 2011 dawns will be that the president has his mojo back.  That’s not what Republicans had in mind on the morning of November 3. Does this mean that President Obama can’t possibly win?  No.  But winning will require doling out a lot of goodies.  Some Republican senators say they are open to being “persuaded.” These Republicans will be watching their fellow fence-sitters.  After all, there is safety in numbers. So if Republican senators do blink during the lame-duck session, a lot of them will do so at once.  That means a comfortable victory for the White House and the inevitable blog posts wondering why the “experts” failed to understand the power of the presidency to bring the Senate to heel. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/courtesy Reuters)

The White House can count well as anyone else.  Passing the New START Treaty during the lame-duck session means holding all fifty-eight Senate Democrats and picking up nine Republican votes.  But only one Senate Republican, Dick Lugar, is publicly committed to voting yes. And at least one Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, is sitting on the fence.  That is not encouraging news. Presidents usually want to know the answer is yes before they ask the question. So why the gamble against long odds? I can think of at least five calculations driving White House thinking: 1. If not now, when? Once the new Senate convenes in January, President Obama will need fourteen Republican votes. The chances of success may be questionable now, but they will more questionable later. 2. Confidence that the treaty’s merits—and fears about the consequences of its defeat—will carry the day. The public might rally behind the White House as news coverage highlights the fact that New START has been endorsed by a who’s who of military leaders and foreign policy luminaries, including Republican grandees such as Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, and Brent Scowcroft, and that the treaty’s defeat could hurt U.S.-Russian relations and efforts to keep Iran from going nuclear. 3. New START is not a core partisan issue, so Republican opposition is not rock solid. More than enough Republican senators would vote for New START if it were a secret ballot.  Demanding a vote puts pressure on Republicans and increases the chances that their united front will crack. 4. A treaty fight could shift the political momentum. November has been a tough month for Obama.   A showdown over START could be a game changer if voters conclude that Senate Republicans are more interested in undermining Obama than promoting the national interest. 5. Better to go down swinging than looking. New START’s chances of passing may be iffy regardless of when the president pushes for passage.  But sitting idly by while a top administration priority dies will only fuel talk of a feckless president.  Trying and losing beats just losing. In my next post I’ll look at the Top Ten reasons Republicans won’t blink first. (Photo: President Obama hosts a meeting to discuss the New START Treaty at the White House.  Larry Downing/courtesy Reuters).

Walking by Westminster this morning I was reminded of the grandeur of democracy.  Watching the battle back in Washington over the New START Treaty, I am reminded that democratic practice is often more bare knuckled than grand. The White House has thrown down the gauntlet on the New Start Treaty, demanding a vote before the lame-duck session ends.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Capitol Hill yesterday to make the case for a vote.  Vice President Joe Biden has organized a senior-level pow-wow at the White House today that will include not just administration heavyweights like Secretary Clinton and Senate powers like John Kerry but also a list of eminence grises from past administrations, Democratic and Republican alike.  President Obama is expected to drop by before he heads off to Lisbon for the NATO Summit. The normally cautious Richard Lugar, ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has thrown his lot in with the administration.  He publicly chewed out his fellow Senate Republicans yesterday, accusing them of ducking the issue.  And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he will make time on the Senate calendar for a vote. So the battle lines are drawn.  The administration is all in. Democrats who have longed for Obama to show some feistiness no doubt are pleased that he is channeling Woodrow Wilson, who said in response to Senate opposition to a treaty he had negotiated, "I consent to nothing.  The Senate must take its medicine." The problem is votes.  The White House doesn’t have them.  Reaching the magic 67-vote mark requires picking up eight Republican votes today, and nine once Republican Mark Kirk is seated sometime over the next two weeks.  That assumes of course that the Democrats hold together, which may be a courageous assumption.  Republican senators on the fence about the treaty will face pressure from some quarters of their party to vote no, and little pressure to vote yes. So while the Senate might vote during the lame-duck session, the outcome could be different from what the administration wants.  Just recall the fate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The lesson is that in a government of co-equal branches the Senate doesn’t have to take the president’s medicine. President Wilson learned that the hard way.  Here’s some historical irony for you.  Tomorrow marks the 91st anniversary of the Senate’s rejection of the Treaty of Versailles.