Does Congress Have the Votes?
Sure they have the votes. What they don't have is the votes to override a funding bill that has withdrawl conditions attached.
All the DEMOCRAT controlled CONGRESS has to do is simply refuse to allocate any funds. They can't be forced to allocate funds. The President can't allocate funds himself, so if the DEMOCRAT controlled CONGRESS doesn't hold a vote to allocate funds then no funds are allocated.
I still think you are simplifying. The first imperative of a politican is his political survival, the only exception being those (like Bush and Cheney) who are lame ducks and could care less about political consequences. A politician that moves too far ahead of its voters will lose his or her job. Whatever logic you propose is confounded by the wariness of the politicans to act in contradiction to the mass of the voters. It is also simplistic to expect politicans to show "leadership" when that very same leadership could result in the loss of their job as well as the loss of party nfluence for years to come. As is true with individuals as well as nations, true change doesn't occur until the pain of going in one direction becomes too great. My guess is that the red states in particular have to bury more of their young by a factor of about ten before there is a change in political direction.
How will we know when we have won the war in Iraq?
Some say we need to stay "as long as it takes" - but as long as it takes for what (exactly) to happen?
What will be the definitive indicators of and criteria for "victory"?
Answer: It will all be over when the fat lady sings (at her inaugural).
But your question begs the question that there really is a war, or to use the president's words, a front in the war against terror. It seems that we must, as we are expending lives and treasure on foreign soil. But I question the premise, especially when it is used as a predicate for us to do something or not something. The formulation is, for example, that since we're at war, we need domestic espionage. In the context of the U.S. Constitution, when can war exist?
Under Article I, Section 8, only the Congress can declare war.
The last time Congress declared war was World War II. Today's conflict constitutionally speaking is at most an undeclared war.
The founding fathers were united in vesting the legislature with war-making authority. "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress," George Washington wrote. "Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." The authorization for the present conflict is section three of the Congressional Resolution on Iraq:
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
These fuzzy statements are the legal basis for our involvement in Iraq. It's ironic that an administration that prides itself on recruiting jurists committed to a philosophy of strict constructionism conveniently adopt an interpretation of the constitution so elastic that none of our founding fathers would recognize it.
What the Iraq war really is is politics by other means. The initial goal of this conflict was not WMDs or the defeat of terrorist or the planting of democracy in the Middle East. It is simply the re-election of Bush and the consolidation of state power by terrorising the sheep-like electorate with images and lies.
However, reality-- the facts on the ground-- have a way of dissolving the illusions of war. And the biggest reality on the ground is the prospect that all branches of US power will swing to the Democratic Party in 2008 or shortly after that. Republican congressmen are announcing their retirement in droves-- six senators by my count and perhaps another twelve members of the house. This has the making of a veto-proof Congress and the possibility that as many as six liberal justices will be appointed to the Supreme Court over the next eight years.
The only criteria for success is to reconceptualize our involvement as a victory-- regardless of whether the facts support that reconceptualization-- rather than an unending, mismanaged quagmire, as General Sanchez suggested last week.
As to the rosy claims of mission accomplished that are now appearing in the press, you may want to consider what is happening outside of Bagdad, especially as regards to Turkey and the Kurds, Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and also the rising power of Parkistan, China, and Russia.
By any rational measure, the decision to go to war in Iraq has caused the United States immense harm, an erosion of respect and influence around the world, and a crippling of America's military establishment and prestige. It will take years for America to recover, and the recovery will have to take place under Democratic administrations.
All the DEMOCRAT controlled CONGRESS has to do is simply refuse to allocate any funds. They can't be forced to allocate funds. The President can't allocate funds himself, so if the DEMOCRAT controlled CONGRESS doesn't hold a vote to allocate funds then no funds are allocated.
I still think you are simplifying. The first imperative of a politican is his political survival, the only exception being those (like Bush and Cheney) who are lame ducks and could care less about political consequences. A politician that moves too far ahead of its voters will lose his or her job. Whatever logic you propose is confounded by the wariness of the politicans to act in contradiction to the mass of the voters. It is also simplistic to expect politicans to show "leadership" when that very same leadership could result in the loss of their job as well as the loss of party nfluence for years to come. As is true with individuals as well as nations, true change doesn't occur until the pain of going in one direction becomes too great. My guess is that the red states in particular have to bury more of their young by a factor of about ten before there is a change in political direction.
How will we know when we have won the war in Iraq?
Some say we need to stay "as long as it takes" - but as long as it takes for what (exactly) to happen?
What will be the definitive indicators of and criteria for "victory"?
Answer: It will all be over when the fat lady sings (at her inaugural).
But your question begs the question that there really is a war, or to use the president's words, a front in the war against terror. It seems that we must, as we are expending lives and treasure on foreign soil. But I question the premise, especially when it is used as a predicate for us to do something or not something. The formulation is, for example, that since we're at war, we need domestic espionage. In the context of the U.S. Constitution, when can war exist?
Under Article I, Section 8, only the Congress can declare war.
The last time Congress declared war was World War II. Today's conflict constitutionally speaking is at most an undeclared war.
The founding fathers were united in vesting the legislature with war-making authority. "The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress," George Washington wrote. "Therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure." The authorization for the present conflict is section three of the Congressional Resolution on Iraq:
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
These fuzzy statements are the legal basis for our involvement in Iraq. It's ironic that an administration that prides itself on recruiting jurists committed to a philosophy of strict constructionism conveniently adopt an interpretation of the constitution so elastic that none of our founding fathers would recognize it.
What the Iraq war really is is politics by other means. The initial goal of this conflict was not WMDs or the defeat of terrorist or the planting of democracy in the Middle East. It is simply the re-election of Bush and the consolidation of state power by terrorising the sheep-like electorate with images and lies.
However, reality-- the facts on the ground-- have a way of dissolving the illusions of war. And the biggest reality on the ground is the prospect that all branches of US power will swing to the Democratic Party in 2008 or shortly after that. Republican congressmen are announcing their retirement in droves-- six senators by my count and perhaps another twelve members of the house. This has the making of a veto-proof Congress and the possibility that as many as six liberal justices will be appointed to the Supreme Court over the next eight years.
The only criteria for success is to reconceptualize our involvement as a victory-- regardless of whether the facts support that reconceptualization-- rather than an unending, mismanaged quagmire, as General Sanchez suggested last week.
As to the rosy claims of mission accomplished that are now appearing in the press, you may want to consider what is happening outside of Bagdad, especially as regards to Turkey and the Kurds, Iran and their nuclear ambitions, and also the rising power of Parkistan, China, and Russia.
By any rational measure, the decision to go to war in Iraq has caused the United States immense harm, an erosion of respect and influence around the world, and a crippling of America's military establishment and prestige. It will take years for America to recover, and the recovery will have to take place under Democratic administrations.
Labels: Iraq
posted by My Mall and News at
2:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home