This would seem a very smart way to take a stand on the filibuster:
Senator Jim Webb has introduced an amendment that requires the military to give troops as much time at home as they spent on their previous deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. Because the armed forces have been stretched thin by the wars, Webb's amendment would make it impossible for the Pentagon to retain current troop levels in Iraq for very long. It drew 57 supporters in July but was, surprise surprise, defeated by filibuster.[...
Harry Reid should bring the amendment up for consideration in September, and he should make clear that he's not going to table it. If he demands that the bill get an up-or-down vote and sticks to his guns, Reid will almost surely emerge victorious.
Why? First off, the Webb amendment is exceptionally popular. Republicans can't seriously oppose more rest and recuperation time for soldiers and marines. They'll say that Congress shouldn't micro-manage the war, but with many troops on their third tour in Iraq, that argument doesn't carry much weight. Second, because the vote was so close last time, at the outset of this debate the outcome would be in sincere doubt. Add to that the fact that such Very Serious Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar have long billed September as the moment of truth regarding Bush's surge, they may finally (with some pushing) feel the need to vote against the president, and the Webb amendment offers the perfect "non-defeat" bill on which to do it. All of this adds real uncertainty -- which constitutes exactly the drama that the press loves. If Reid can keep the floor debate going for 3 or 4 days, the excitement will only build -- if the Senate is deadlocked over the fate of thousands of U.S. soldiers, America will tune in.
Add in that James Webb is exactly the anti-war voice that Democrats should be uniting behind, and this strikes me as a pretty strong case. Indeed, I'm almost more interested in the question of why Reid won't do it.
