Twelve Lessons Learned From the Military Aid Bill
The Week that Renewed Hope
By Mark Strand
After a long wait, Congress passed the military aid bill for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan quickly last week. This is not entirely uncommon when it comes to legislation. Often, leaders must wait for the right confluence of events to force hesitant members to commit to a course of action.
The military aid bill is also worth discussing since history will include this as one of the four or five most consequential votes in the 118th Congress:
The vote to elect Kevin McCarthy as Speaker on the 15th ballot.
McCarthy successfully passed a debt relief bill through his fractious caucus that forced the Administration to concede significant budget cuts.
Eight Republicans, uniting with all the Democrats, removed Kevin McCarthy as Speaker as punishment for passing the budget cuts Biden agreed to accept.
Passage of the much-delayed Fiscal Year 2024 appropriation bills.
The military aid bill.
So, what did we learn from this April week that will likely change the trajectory of events in Ukraine, in particular?
1. Mike Johnson is growing into his job. Let’s not forget that when Johnson was picked by his colleagues to succeed McCarthy, his main asset was that he had very few enemies. The fact that he now does have enemies merely means he has gotten some things done. However, Johnson was not preparing to move into the Speakership when he was elected. When John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy were elected Speaker, they had been setting up their Speakerships as the Republican Minority Leader – grooming leadership staff, developing legislative platforms, and campaigning around the country to build a majority coalition. Both spent years preparing to be Speaker. Even Paul Ryan, while not a member of the leadership per se, had significant preparation for the Speakership as Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, one of the most powerful committees in Congress, after serving as the Budget Committee Chair and running as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate in 2016.
Johnson had to go from a personal staff of 18 to a Speaker, with some 70 staff, overnight. He did not get the grace period new Speakers have between the November election and the new Congress’s swearing-in on January 3. That included organizing Floor operations, a media team, member services, and agenda-setting. He had to take over a fundraising operation that McCarthy perfected without national fundraising experience. He now had to manage Team Chaos with an immediate need to keep the government open. All of this while being threatened by the same minority in his party that had just flexed their muscles and destroyed Kevin McCarthy’s Speakership.
When Johnson was elected Speaker in October, it was not clear that the Democrats would not have been more than happy to throw Johnson out, too. Politically, why not make the Republicans look even more foolish (if that was possible) by throwing out a second Speaker? Johnson, being very conservative and very pro-life, was an attractive target for the Democrats.
So, it was never clear that Johnson could have survived a motion to vacate before he even had the chance for the military aid bill to come up. However, while working against the Ukrainians, time contributed to the right combination of factors to allow for success ultimately. The Senate was always supportive of the military aid bill. Still, it broke down when it tried to negotiate a border package. It blew up in the face of confusing Republican responses, driven mainly by their presidential candidate, Donald Trump.
2. Claiming that Mike Johnson changed his views on Ukraine is a misnomer. Johnson, a classic Reagan Republican and evangelical, was always pro-Ukraine. His position was, “Yes, but how?” And despite the frustration caused by the delay in military aid to the Ukrainians on the front line, it was not clear that Johnson could get the Senate-passed military aid bill through the House.
3. To succeed, Johnson had to lay the groundwork for bypassing three Republican extremists McCarthy had appointed to the Rules Committee as a concession to get elected. As I have pointed out in several earlier posts, this created a breakdown in the ability of Speaker Johnson to control the agenda. He had successfully used the suspension calendar to pass several essential appropriation bills, but there was no guarantee that he could get two-thirds of the vote. While there was a significant number of Republicans against aid to Ukraine, they were all mostly supportive of assistance to Israel. But Democratic support for Israel had been fading as protests in the United States in support of Palestinians created problems for President Biden’s reelection in states like Michigan.
As I had pointed out several times, the only way to get the Senate bill to the Floor for a simple majority vote was a bipartisan deal with the Democrats. The inside-the-Beltway media claimed this was unprecedented, but that was also misleading. It was not unprecedented; it had merely passed from short-term memory. Before the start of the 21st Century, bipartisan deals to get legislation to the House Floor were the norm. That is not to say parties were less partisan, but they understood that it was often necessary to compromise to accomplish essential legislation.
The genius of the strategy was dividing the bill into four parts. There was a large majority for aid to Ukraine and a large majority for aid to Israel, but they weren’t the same majority.
4. To pull this off, Johnson had to survive the threat of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to kick him out of her job. With various resignations, the Republican margin was down to two or three votes. And three Republicans had already announced support for removing him. That means that if the Democrats did the same thing they did supporting Rep. Matt Gaetz and removing Kevin McCarthy, Johnson would also be removed. The House would return to the paralysis of October, where business could not be conducted for three weeks until a new Speaker was elected. Had Johnson been removed from office, who knows how long the House would have been paralyzed because, seriously, who would you get to take the job?
The potential breakdown of the House was not lost on the Democrats. Despite the temptation to watch the Republicans self-immolate in an election year, they too realized that if the House were to shut down, it could be months before aid to Ukraine and Israel could pass, perhaps resulting in massive Ukrainian losses on the battlefield. The inability of the House to act would not be lost on Russia, China, Iran, or Hamas. It would be a threat to our national security and our allies. To their credit, the Democrats started clarifying that they would vote to table the motion to vacate, easing the pressure on Johnson and isolating Greene and her two colleagues, Reps. Thomas Massie and Paul Gosar.
5. Donald Trump played a significant role in allowing the military aid bill to go through. Twice within two weeks, Trump signaled that Johnson had his support. That endorsement froze many potential defectors in the Freedom Caucus since going against Johnson would now mean going against Trump.
It made great sense for Trump to help Johnson pass the bill. First, it would not help his campaign for his party to be seen as unable to govern in the months leading up to the election. Second, since the military aid to Ukraine was so significant, it took an issue off the table that split his party right down the middle. Future decisions to aid Ukraine would likely not occur until 2025 after the next President was chosen. Finally, former President Trump met with current Polish President Andrzej Duda in New York, where the conversation certainly included the need to help Ukraine. While Trump has never liked or been liked by Western European leaders, he has always supported the newer democracies in Central and Eastern Europe.
Trump has always been at the center of the bewildering opposition to Ukraine on some parts of the populist right. The Hunter Biden controversy and the now apparent cover-up of the evidence involving potentially corrupt payments from a Ukrainian company to the then-Vice-Presidents son is still an issue for many Republicans. And don’t forget the first impeachment of President Trump centered around a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. All this even though President Trump did send lethal aid to Ukraine, unlike the non-lethal aid of MREs and helmets sent by the Obama Administration. This needs to be studied more, but it may explain some of the surprising Republican opposition to Ukraine.
6. The timing of the vote was driven by three things that showed there was now no more time to waste.
The first was the attack by Iran on Israel. It was no minor attack. It was a layered drone and missile attack modeled on the successful Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure. The idea was to overwhelm Israel’s air defense so that some of the missiles would get through and impose devastating damage and loss of life. Don’t believe for a second that it was merely an Iranian fireworks show intended for psychological impact rather than mass casualties. Iran did not count on the air forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, Jordan, and probably Saudi Arabia to take out most of the slow-flying drones, leaving Israel to focus on the ballistic missile attacks. While Americans were amazed by Israel’s response, the need to replenish their defensive weapons was now a clear priority.
The second was Speaker Johnson’s military intelligence briefings from the American intelligence officials and his own Intelligence Committees in the House and Senate. Johnson became convinced that the House had to act immediately, or the prospect of a Russian military breakthrough was imminent. While the United States had dithered, Russia had received massive amounts of military equipment from North Korea, Iran, and China. Our enemies were doubling down to support Russia, taking advantage of the low levels of Ukrainian ammunition. Even without these other factors, it was likely Johnson would have brought the bill to the Floor even if it meant losing his job.
Finally, no one should underestimate the impact that Russian religious persecution of non-Russian Orthodox Christians, particularly evangelicals, had on the Speaker. Marjorie Taylor Greene and others on the populist right had been directly repeating Russian propaganda that Putin was some hero of Christianity and that the Zelenskyy government was persecuting Christians. It was the modern version of Vladimir Lenin’s “useful idiots” at work to support the Russian propaganda machine. But then, these Christian pastors started getting their message out. People like Steven Moore (subscribe to his Substack column here), the former House Chief of Staff, showed polls and studies about Ukrainian beliefs and support for Christianity to whoever would listen in Congress.
Gary Marx, President of Defenders of Faith and Religious Freedom in Ukraine, detailed Russian abuses of Christians and the efforts of American Christians to support their brothers and sisters in faith in Ukraine. Said Marx, “The persecution of Christians in Ukraine, and the specter of broader religious oppression across Eastern Europe galvanized Evangelicals into action. Their collective voice helped to persuade Speaker Mike Johnson to change course and advance Ukraine funding in the U.S. House.”
Convincing Johnson would be easy. Some of the pastors had met with Johnson’s wife, and she asked Johnson to meet with them. If you know anything about Mike Johnson, his deep faith motivates him and influences many of his political views. The meeting with the pastors was private, but it is not hard to surmise that it was a highly moving and significant reason for Johnson’s support.
7. The Republican vote against military aid to Ukraine needs to be examined. While 112 voted against the Ukraine military aid bill on final passage, the critical vote measuring how hard-core the opposition was the vote on the Greene Amendment to prevent any military aid to Ukraine. On that vote, just 71, or about one-third of the Republicans, voted with Greene. The remaining 51 Republicans who voted no on final passage likely sought a pass from their leaders once the votes to assure passage were apparent. This is not an unusual parliamentary tactic for leadership to let members “off the hook” when they thought a particular vote would hurt them in their districts once they knew the bill would pass. It is not exactly an example of profiles in courage, but it is a traditional act known as “vote no and pray yes.”
The key takeaway from the votes of these 51 members is that their votes are attainable in the future when the issue inevitably comes up again.
8. It is an embarrassment to the United States of how much blatant Russian propaganda was repeated on the House Floor and social media. Rep. Greene and Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio repeated stories published by the Wagner Group that Zelenskyy had bought two yachts and a mansion in Florida with American aid money. They repeated the absurd Russian propaganda that Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, was a Nazi. If posts on Twitter were to be believed, many of their followers were more than happy to spread this propaganda on social media.
This propaganda was repeated despite Zelenskyy, when asked by the Americans if he wanted to be evacuated when the Russians invaded in 2022, saying, “I don’t want a ride; I want ammunition.” Western democracies will always be at the mercy of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian propaganda if the useful idiots are willing to parrot their disinformation (I was going to use another word, but you get the point).
9. It should be noted that several Senate Republicans who had initially opposed the military aid vote supported the House bill. Senators like Lindsey Graham, who had long been a defender of Ukraine, came back around. Disappointingly, Florida Senator Marco Rubio did not. This is perplexing, to say the least.
10. One of the great paradoxes of the dance of legislation is how glacier-like legislation can proceed until suddenly everything happens in a whirlwind of cooperation and support. The bill passed the House on Saturday, passed the Senate on Wednesday (even though opposition Senators could have drawn out the process), and was signed by the President, with military aid delivered by the weekend. Congress can be very frustrating to watch, but it is also clear that even in the most polarized of political atmospheres, in the middle of an election where the Senate, House, and Presidency can all change hands, in a crisis, Congress can still act. That is worth further discussion.
11. Despite the media, bipartisan votes on significant questions are the historical norm. In 1965, Congress passed Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act with a majority of both parties in both Chambers. In the mid-2000s, a Republican Congress and a Democratic President passed the Welfare Reform Bill, which was the first significant revision of an entitlement program in history. Then, they went on to pass three balanced budgets in a row. This is how Congress is supposed to work.
The 21st-century experiment with a faux parliamentary system where the minority party automatically opposes the majority party (mainly because they are blocked from the process) has failed the country. Building bipartisan majorities in Congress worked, especially on foreign affairs issues. There was plenty of politicking going on, don’t get me wrong, but members did not hesitate to pursue partnerships with members of the other party to get things done. When I was the Chief of Staff to Senator James Talent of Missouri from 2002-2006, he would not introduce a bill until he found a Democrat to cosponsor the bill. Talent’s legislative style led to the passage of some significant legislation. Today, it would lead to a primary.
12. And finally, we once again saw the hesitancy of the Biden Administration to give Ukraine the weapons they need to win. First, it was HiMARS launchers, then tanks, then F-16s, and now ATACAMS. The Administration hesitates for fear of escalating the war, only to turn around and give the systems to Ukraine a year or more after requested. Here is a news flash: Russia has already declared itself at war with NATO. President Biden will not endear himself to Vladimir Putin and his regime by hesitating to act. If anything, his hesitancy merely encourages Russia to push harder.
(I spoke with Mikal Rachon on the Rock Rachon Show (if you are interested in the take of Eastern European views on Russian aggression in their region of the world, you must subscribe to his Substack at rockrachon.substack.com).
Conclusion
The effort to win additional military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Iran, as well as some other provisions in the fourth section of the bill, will be studied for years precisely because it was so difficult and complex. While it is not likely to enable Ukraine to win the war this year, it will likely restore balance to the battlefield and push the Russians back from their recent gains. The introduction of the longer-range ATACAMs and the air cover soon provided by F-16s will also change the Russian advantage on the battlefield.
It will also allow Israel to shore up their magnificent air defense, which will also send a signal to enemies like Iran, China, and North Korea that their plans for offensive military operations need to go back to the drawing board.
Most interestingly, from an American political viewpoint, has been Mike Johnson’s successful survival of a trial by fire. In six months, he has forced through appropriations, avoided a government shutdown, and managed his razor-thin majority by resorting to traditional norms of bipartisan cooperation to get essential things done. Unfortunately for him, his job will not likely get much easier between now and the election. Still, there is no doubt that he has emerged as a political figure in his own right, with some very significant accomplishments under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
This is a typically thoughtful and incisive analysis. Thanks for posting it.
Ukraine is at around the same point that Vietnam and Iraq were two years in. Public opinion has gone from overwhelming support to split. Votes have gone from 420-0 against to something like what we saw in this bill. People sense where the wind is blowing but they don't want to get blamed for not doing enough.
In another two years public opinion will be net against. Congressional votes will start to go against aid in congress. The executive will be proposing various solutions (Vietnamization, Troop Surge, etc) to try and buy some time, especially if there is an election coming up.
It will end in some kind of frozen conflict, the exact borders of which who knows. Ukraine will be completely drained demographically and financially. It will never recover. Everyone will just kind of forget about it.