Congress and the War

A lot of commentary has been put forth on the limitations of what exactly Congress can do to limit President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war. A lot of this commentary, in my opinion, is quite wrong.

Kevin Drum and Big Tent Democrat argue that the only Constitutional option available to Congress to limit President Bush's war making is to cut off funding. They argue that something like Obama's proposal to limit the number of troops that Bush may use in Iraq is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. I am decidedly unconvinced by their arguments as I'll show below.

For other view in opposition to Drum and Big Tent see Matthew Yglasias and Mark Kleiman.

The first place to start in understanding why Drum and Big Tent are wrong is to read Glen Greenwald's recounting of how the Congress has, in fact, already exercised the powers that folks are arguing it can't. In 1993 Congress expressly limited the forces which could be used in Somalia and set dates as to when those forces had to be removed. The passage of those resolutions limiting Presidential authority was lead by Republicans in Congress, including many of those arguing now that such legislation is unconstitutional. At the time, not only were had these Republicans not yet discovered the unconstitutionality of the legislation, but no one else was apparently aware of it as well. The sudden discovery of this principal well into the third century of the Republic's existence suggests to me that it is not built on a firm foundation.

The arguments for limited allowed Congressional response seem to me to depend upon very odd assumptions about the inherent power of a "commander-in-chief". The arguments seem to insist that it is an inherent power of a "commander-in-chief" to use any and all forces under his command to achieve whatever objectives have been assigned to him. In other words the only option open to the people of the United States should we deem that some limited military action against some foreign power is called for are:

1. Forgo the action and live with the condition that called for the action, however dire it might be.
2. Declare war, in which case the President may use every last bit of the military of the United States against this power, however unwise such a large use of force might seem

The one option which is absolutely forbidden to us is to declare war and direct the President to eliminate the condition which provoked hostilities using only that portion of the military deemed wise to use. Why this option should be forbidden is a complete mystery to me.

At every level of command in the entire structure of the United States military it is a perfectly normal event that a commander is

1. assigned an objective to achieve
2. instructed as to what portion of the forces under his command may be dedicated to the objective.

There is no general rule that if an officer is assigned some objective that he may always use the entirety of his forces to achieve it. Military command would, in general, be rendered impossible if a commanding officer could not order a subordinate to accomplish some tasks using a portion of the subordinate's forces while leaving the rest in place. I have seen absolutely no reason why the President as commander-in-chief should not face the same condition.

In the President's case the military objectives he is given are set by Congress via a declaration of war. And just like any other commander of some portion of the United States Army and Navy, it is perfectly reasonable for Congress to assign to the President not only the objective but what forces he may use to achieve it.

Addressing Two Conservative Arguments

This post addresses a few of my thoughts on some Conservative arguments for continuing the war in Iraq. It was done in response to this comment by elmendorf over on Kevin Drum's blog 'Political Animal' and can be found there as well. I just wanted to record it here too.

I just have to respond to elmendorf's December 23, 2006 at 3:22 PM post, although he seems to have vanished. He uses two arguments, that conservatives seem to love, that should be shown to be absurd.

It's popular Conventional Wisdom among liberals that their actions, both in this war, and Vietnam, had absolutely nothing to do with our setbacks and losses.

Two things about this quote. We see here the conservative standard that if the left has more than "absolutely nothing" to do with the loss then the conservatives are totally absolved and the left is entirely to blame. The conservatives failures to plan, to understand the country, the terrain, the enemy, to clearly set forth a national objective, etc. can all be ignored unless the activities of 'the left' had, beyond any possibility of doubt, "absolutely nothing" to do with the failure. This is the basic formula for conservatives that is part and parcel of their refusal to take responsibility for any of their actions.

On a related note, I must say that any policy or principal of any sort invariably has advantages and disadvantages. The fundamental principal of the United States to allow, indeed to encourage, debate and discussion of our policies before, during and after their execution, no doubt has, at times, provided some morale boost to our enemies. However, this principal of debate also makes our policies better and more likely to succeed. We can see that clearly today in that the absence of debate in 2002 has been a major cause of the failures in Iraq today. The advantages we gain from this debate, far, far outweigh any disadvantages. Conservatives ignore all the advantages gained from open debate and focus only on the trivially small cost that these debates might, I repeat might have. Note too, that for all they rail on about patriotism, for conservatives there really is only one great, unforgivable crime. And that crime is not criticizing the Unite States. We have seen, in recent weeks, any amount of talk from conservatives that the problems in Iraq stem from America and Americans loosing their nerve or not having the will (see Tom DeLay) or in the past several years, Coulter labeling a third to half of all Americans traitors, or Jerry Falwell blaming American and Americans for 9/11. These condemnations of America and Americans from conservatives raise not a peep of protest, indeed they are often met with great praise. No the one unforgivable crime, to which the names of treason and hating America will be given, is to claim that conservatives are wrong, are to blame or are at fault.

The second point made by elmendorf that I wish to address is in this paragraph:

Almost an entire political party advocating unconditional surrender--and face it, that's what "redeployment to other countries" or "withdrawal" is no matter how much icing you slap on it--goes a very long way to convincing our enemies to keep fighting.

The insistence, on the part of conservatives, that withdraw from Iraq means "unconditional surrender" is nothing short of pathetic. In every war ever fought by any nation great or small, there have been reverses and withdraws necessitated by the fortunes of war. To recognize that a given operation has failed and that it is time to redeploy one's forces so as to achieve victory elsewhere is just a requirement of competent leadership. The conservative demand that they be granted a "victory" in Iraq or else they will call everybody a "looser" and give up, is no more than the tantrum of a child who threatens to run and cry unless he not only wins the game, but wins every turn. In 1864 Grant fought a dreadful battle at Spotsylvania Courthouse, with several regiments ground to nothing in the so-called 'bloody angle' but where Lee had the day and prevented the Union break through. Lee won that battle and no doubt the Army of Northern Virginia gained some boost to morale, but Grant marched on to Cold Harbor and Petersburg and victory in the overall struggle. In 1915 Great Britain attempted to take Turkey out of the war by invading the Gallipoli peninsula. By the end of the year it was clear that the operation had failed and in January of 1916 the British troops were withdrawn, which most certainly gave encouragement to the Turks. Nonetheless, Great Britain went on to defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In September of 1944 the allies attempted to achieve a rapid crossing of the Rhine by landing three airborne divisions in Holland to capture several bridges and to be followed up by the XXX corps crossing the river at Arnhem. By the ninth day of the operation, it was clear that it had failed and the remains of the British 1st airborne in Arnhem were withdrawn. No doubt the Germans felt some boost to morale, but the Allies went ahead and won the war anyway, crossing the Rhine elsewhere. My point is that not all military campaigns will be a success, nor does the nation's safety or reputation require them to be. It is indeed a failure to launch an operation that does not succeed, but it is a greater failure by far to continue to pursue a failed course, as our conservative fellow countrymen insist we do.

Just as Grant ultimately succeeded though he pulled out of Spotsylvania, and the British succeeded in WWI although they pulled out of Gallipoli, and the Allies won WWII although they did not hold the Arnhem bridge, the goals and principals of this nation can still prevail if we pull out of Iraq and direct our resources elsewhere. Indeed, I would argue, if we are to succeed in our ultimate objectives we need to pull out of Iraq. In Iraq we are no longer fighting for the nation's interest but only in the interest of saving the reputations of some leading conservative politicians and pundits.

Appeasement or Gallipoli

Think Progress » Dole Stumped When Asked To Name Anyone Who Believes ‘The Terrorists Can Be Appeased’

This, from ThinkProgress, set me to thinking:

Sec. Rumsfeld last week compared Iraq war critics to Hitler appeasers. This morning on Fox News, Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) was asked to name someone — anyone — who actually believes “the terrorists can be appeased.” She couldn’t do it.

The simple reason, of course why she can't name anyone is because there isn't anyone. However, what is it we are thinking. To my mind a much better analogy to the way we on the left view Iraq would be the British operation in Gallipoli during World War I. No doubt the Turks were, to some extent, emboldened when the British finally pulled the ANZACs out. Nonetheless, the vast improvement the British gained by having those forces deploy somewhere useful, more than made up for whatever degree the Turks were emboldened. It would also be quite absurd to characterize the withdrawal as appeasing the Turks, especially as the British continued to fight the Turks, indeed going on to defeat them in the war.

An Essential Difference

The point raised in this post is a very important, indeed essential, difference today between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats recognize the need for critical review. The Republicans not only have abandoned this idea, but now hold it in contempt. Look, no one is smart enough, or virtuous enough, or wise enough to put together any time of complicated plan or program that has no flaws. Any plan put together by one individual, or a small group of like minded people, will have serious flaws. Those flaws will only be removed if the plans are subjected to critical review, by a diverse group of independent people. Without that review the plans will remain deeply flawed. That is what we are seeing in Iraq. The Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld plans for Iraq were never really reviewed, certainly not by independent critics (or to the extent that independent critics did put forth their comments, those comments were ignored) and as a result the worlds greatest supper power is struggling to come up with some kind of success in fighting Iraq.

Will the Democrats plan for timed withdraw work? I don't know. But the current plan of more of the same will not. Also, if the Democrats plans are reviewed and debated, as the Democrats are doing, this nation will come up with the best options possible to salvage as much as can be from Iraq.