Iraq, year six

What a crock of rubbish. I was drawn to this article by the headline "Iraq,year six." This article had nothing to say about Iraq year six. It had little to say about Iraq period. Instead, a person with press credentials uses this article as a soapbox for his own personal agenda. This is yellow journalism at it's finest. The author, Frank James needs a change in venue. He would do well with Pravda.

When the political sphere gets whipped into a froth, it often screams for a Constitutional amendment -- e.g. flag-burning.

The pathetic thing about Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam is that we already have, in the original Constitution, the clearest, simplest language stating whose responsibility declaring war is: Congress.

The last American war that commenced and was waged with a Congressional declaration was World War Two.

Since Korea, Congress has simply ducked, dodged and weaseled out of its Constitutional responsibility to declare and authorize war.

It has become Congress' new culture and habit to let the president bear all the political heat for war, and when the war goes south and inflames and outrages the electorate, Congress can say: Don't blame us, this is the president's doing, he started it, his signature is on the paperwork, not ours.

So we get these never-ending Blunder Wars, and the corpses of our neighbors' sons and daughters flown back to Dover Air Force Base.

The only modern president to take responsibility for ending one of these disasters was Gerald Ford. Johnson and Nixon did not have the guts to end Vietnam. They understood clearly that ordering an end to an American war would be political suicide.

Obama doesn't have the clarity or political nerve to end these two Asian wars, and is ratcheting up our military commitment in Afghanistan.

The last foreign army to conquer and control all of Afghanistan was Alexander the Great. The British couldn't, the Soviet Union couldn't.

Declaring or avoiding Blunder Wars that kill and cripple our neighbors' children is Congress' clear responsibility. When Congress shirks it, and won't face it, Congress is begging to become The Irrelevant, Symbolic, Useless branch of the federal government -- exactly like the Roman Senate under the emperors: a great temple of florid, patriotic, televised speeches, of waving flags, of declations of National Sofa Week.

Until Congress grabs back its Constitutional duty for declaring war, it's just a silly bunch of useless cowards, accumulating benefits and pensions, flying to sun and ski junkets on free rides on corporate jets.

While our neighbors' daughters and sons keep getting maimed, committing suicide, and dying in (as Congressman Lincoln called Polk's Mexican War) Liars' and Scoundrels' Wars.

John Ward,
.
I guess you have never read a Frank James article before?
.
If Frank had bothered to do a little research he would have seen the joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq had backing by the major democratic senators.
.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2
.
If as he states that the Senators were also afraid to vote against this because of upcoming 2002 & 2004 election, then this says a lot about democratic leadership.
.
One other not about this vote - for all of you flatliners that said President Bush rushed into war with Saddam - US troops didn't go into Iraq until 6 months after this vote.
.
As far the WMDs, the democratic leadership from the Clinton administration and also the Senate leaderhship during the Bush administration sur thought those WMDs existed.
.
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

I wish Colin Powell's role as Secretary of State had been addressed in whipping up the frenzy to invade. Second to Bush himself, Powell looked the dumbest of all over the Iraq War.

Okay third dumbest, after Bush and Rumsfeld.

But Hussein blundered most though. He should have sued Bush for illegally invading under international law, citing the lack of a Congressional declaration of war. Wouldn't that have been a kick, an international bad guy holding the US Congress accountable to the Constitution.

One other thing to note. Obama's 'withdrawal' will leave 50,000 troops in place.

* * * * *
Posted by: Bob Merkin | March 22, 2009 12:59 PM
.
Bob,
.
I have no reason to disagree with the points you make about irresponsibility and blame shifting in Washington. However, I must disagree with you on some of the things you’ve said, and with particular regard to your statement that we haven’t had a constitutionally declared war since World War II.
.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution grants to Congress the power “[t]o declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water . . .” Beyond this provision, the Constitution prescribes no particular form of words regarding the content of a declaration of war. In contrast, the Constitution mentions other forms of belligerency, such as invasion and insurrection, and requires no particular declaration of war to authorize the President to repel an invasion or suppress an insurrection. Rather than declaring a state of invasion or insurrection, the duty of Congress is limited to providing “for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions . . .” (U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, Cl. 15.) The President requires no congressional authorization to repel an invasion from a foreign nation. (See The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635, 668 (1862).) The constitutional distinction is drawn at the point that the President seeks authority to “set on foot a military expedition against a nation with whom the United States are at peace.” (United States v. Smith, 27 Fed. Cas. p. 1192, 1229-30 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806), cited in Holmes v. United States, 391 U.S. 936, fn. 10 (1968) (Douglas, J. Dissenting.).) It takes an act of Congress to authorize the latter because “it is the exclusive province of congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.” (Smith, at pp. 1230-31.)
.
But if a declaration of war doesn’t require any particular form, then why isn’t it the case that a congressional act authorizing the use of military force against another nation constitutes a declaration of war? If an act of Congress does everything to authorize war against another nation with which the United States are at peace, is it any less of a declaration of war simply because it isn’t captioned or entitled “declaration of war”? I don’t think so. If a bill appropriates money, it is an appropriation bill regardless of whether it is denominated one. If it authorizes war, it is a declaration of war even if not called such. Laws are reckoned by their substance rather than their form or title.
.
This being the case, I must part company with your suggestion that we haven’t had a declared war since the World War II. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution clearly authorized the President to employ the Armed Forces of the United States in hostile activities in Vietnam. The fact that it was a congressional authorization for a hostile military expedition against a nation with whom we were at peace made it a declaration of war even though it wasn’t called one. No one appears to be able to explain what was missing from it to deprive it of its character as a declaration of war. Congress has likewise authorized the use of force in Iraq (twice) and in Afghanistan. Nobody in Congress has suggested that they haven’t authorized these incursions. Their excuse has been to say they were duped into granting such authorization. That, again, doesn’t change the nature of what they have authorized.
.
So yes, I must agree with you that politicians have engaged in the deplorable practice of blaming the executive for wars of their causing. However, it is even more deplorable because those expeditions were produced by constitutional authorization, making their denials a pack of lies.
.
I must also part company with your statement that it was Gerald Ford rather than Nixon who “had the guts” to end the Vietnam War. Our ground forces, with the exception of a few advisors and embassy guards, had already been withdrawn pursuant to the Paris Peace Accords in 1973 before Gerald Ford ever took office. In fact, when North Vietnam reneged on the Paris Accords in 1974, Ford sought authorization from Congress to resume military support for South Vietnam. He was rebuffed by Congress, and North Vietnam went on to successfully complete its invasion.

[quote]
If as he states that the Senators were also afraid to vote against this because of upcoming 2002 & 2004 election, then this says a lot about democratic leadership.

Posted by: Terry | March 22, 2009 2:36 PM
[/quote]

So what do you say about the quality of Republic Party leadership that has gone on record saying that they won't vote for the stimulus bill because, if it works, it can be used against them in the 2010 elections?

BC,
.
Are you saying that the GOP didn't vote for the stimulus bill becuase they were afraid it would work? If it works and they voted for it, they would be on the victorious side; so I am not sure what you mean that it would be used against them. Used against them by whom - a democrat? The GOPer would just say he was backing BO, wouldn't give give the dem opponent much wiggle room.

Hey John W --
.
Stop confusing me with Legal and Historical Citations and Thoughtful Insights! I hate that!
.
You're systematically on point, but I think you're slightly missing The Big Overview:

How can Americans insulate and protect themselves from a rogue president's tsunami of jingoism, and how can Congress -- with its near-universal terror of not being re-elected every 2 years -- be willing to stand up and analyze fraudulent intelligence and downright lies pushing us into war.

Your citation of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution hits the nail on the head: Legal, Constitutional -- and triggered by an enemy attack which never actually happened. The Tonkin Gulf attacks spookily mimic the motorized Zodiac boat incidents Bush & Co. were pointing to to rattle jingo sabers against Iran.

But I still blame the 2-Asian-War mess on the systemic cowardice of Congress. There were members clearly calling for the wars to end: the most marginalized and villified "loonies" Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

And Special Mention to Senator Byrd of WV and his amazing speech "Sleepwalking Through History" -- delivered to an empty Senate chamber.

If a war's worth fighting, for bona fide national security reasons, let Congress step up to the plate and declare it. What we have now is idiots like Hillary Clinton and her "If I knew then what I know now ..."

The moment to vote, to approve or oppose, is always Then, dummy.

Thanks, muy sincerely, for your very thoughtful and informed reply.

Bob

* * * * *
Posted by: Bob Merkin | March 23, 2009 1:15 PM
.
You raise excellent points, Bob.
.
The answer to the first question concerning protecting the American people and Congress from a jingo in the White house lies in the abuse itself. If we were wise, we would be wary of someone rushing us off to war after the way we were drawn into Duh’bya’s foolish foreign adventurism. Let this be our example so that we don’t rush into foreign wars without some serious and obvious defense issues involved. Congressmen will be well warned not to side with a warmonger’s benevolent attempt to liberate an oppressed people. If people want to be free (or freer than they are), they will eventually do what they must to win their freedom. We did. The Russians did. And so did the rest of Eastern Europe. We should be content to practice realpolitik as we did before.
.
The second answer is to use common sense. The invasion of Iraq, for example, was an obviously foolish maneuver despite the Bush Administration’s fear mongering. Threats of WMDs should have been trumped in the minds of our lawmakers by the fact that Iraq had no means of delivering them in any fashion that posed a threat to our security. We had a military presence both on the Saudi Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf that could have responded to any imminent threat against Iraq’s neighbors. In contrast, anyone with knowledge of the region’s history would have known that Iraq was the worst place in the world for a western power to attempt regime change. British attempts to do so in the early 20th Century resulted in total failure after close to four decades of popular insurrections. It was the last insurrection that finally put the Baath Party into power. We are now repeating history needlessly. In addition, the power vacuum created by the loss of the bully on the block has emboldened Iran to assert itself in a manner that is even more threatening. It was also likely that our efforts in Iraq would be met with resentment from those who don’t believe heathen should control Muslim lands. Leaving the bully on the block, on the other hand, would have made our presence more welcome by those who feared Saddam. All of these consequences were reasonably apparent to anyone who took the time to ask and think. But our representatives in Congress simply chose not to think before they acted. This is a trend that has continued to the present.
.
Not only are you correct that there were voices opposing the war, those who voiced their opposition understood why going to war was foolish. If a handful of Congressmen could understand the folly of what we were getting ourselves into, why couldn’t the rest of them?

Hi John W --
.
Here's a snapshot hosed from Wikipedia about how members of the Senate and House analyze and act during a jingo tsunami. Remember, of course, that Max Cleland is a triple amputee Army Vietnam vet, a recipient of the Silver Star:
.
===========
.
Cleland was one of the 29 Senate Democrats who backed the authorization to go to war in Iraq. He later stated he had misgivings about the Bush administration's stance, but said he felt pressure in his tight Senate race to go along with it. In 2005, he said "it was obvious that if I voted against the resolution that I would be dead meat in the race, just handing them ... a victory." He characterized his vote for war as "the worst vote I cast."
.
===========
.
All this would be Just Politics as, historically, we're used to it.
.
But on the rush to war, the consequences, in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, are the lives and lifelong health consequences of our young women and men, drafted then, and now "volunteers" increasingly pressured into uniform by the bleak employment and educational prospects that face America's lowest economic classes.
.
At the time of the Iraq resolution, only one member of Congress had a child serving in uniform. Both the Bush and Clinton cabinets (with the notable exception of Vietnam Army vet Al Gore) were notoriously filled with officials who had never served in the military, sitting out the Vietnam War with the generous upper-class loopholes offered by the Vietnam-era draft.
.
Your very informed comments seem to take comfort in the Constitutional "lawfulness" of these rogue jingo wars. I take no such comfort that the paperwork has its i's dotted and t's crossed. At the time of this Swamp post, 4927 Americans in uniform had died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
.
Clearly the brake on a rogue president which the Constitution intended Congress to provide is no brake at all. Legalistic arguments just emphasize the agony, for our neighbors' daughters and sons, of "Act in haste, repent at leisure."
.
Our military adventure in Iraq has now lasted far longer than the U.S. military required to unconditionally defeat all enemy combatants in World War II. Afghanistan even longer, and Obama promises to ratchet up our uniform combat commitment. (He never served in uniform, either.)
.
Congress AND the White House have slid into the addiction of playing War Poker with with other peoples' chips.
.
Bob M

* * * * *
Posted by: Bob Merkin | March 24, 2009 12:54 PM
.
Bob,
.
You misunderstand me if you think I take any “comfort in the Constitutional ‘lawfulness’ of these rogue jingo wars.” I do not, and I never have. The point of the exercise for me was to point out that the constitutional duty to get us into (and out of ) these miserable excursions lays entirely on the shoulders of those in Congress, and that it is a responsibility that cannot be shirked by relabeling the finished product. If anything, I said that those in Congress had an independent duty to investigate the truth and to arrive at some understanding of it on their own. This is something they didn’t do, as Senator Byrd’s speech amply pointed out. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution meant that the Vietnam War was a lawfully declared war. That doesn’t change the fact that it was both unnecessary and foolish. Ditto for Iraq and Congress’ authorization to use force there.