Solving the Iraq Crisis Through Legislative Action: The letter that started a revolution

Since posting yesterday's essay, I've had a chance to reflect on some of my own thoughts and believe I may have found the ideal way for Congress to end the war in Iraq on terms we, as Americans, can all live with. To best understand my proposed solution, I think its best that you read yesterday's essay for background on the Constitutional powers of each branch at play here and the concept of supplemental budget requests. If you feel familiar with those concepts or have already read "yesterday's effort" on them, then please continue. I'm so convinced this solution will work that I sent it to numerous United States Senators. Absent pleasantries, the text below is the same that was sent to them, under the heading, "Solving the Iraq Crisis Through Legislative Action." Here goes:

Congress should respond to Bush's supplemental budget request with funding that lasts until a date certain. To make this solution politically feasible, the Democrats would have to publicly set a deadline (say Bush's benchmark from last night that control of all Iraqi provinces is ceded to Iraqis by November) and only provide funding for operations up to that date. Since the next meaningful supplemental budget request is due in mid-February, the Democrats could announce the November deadline and send such a bill to Bush with ample notice of the deadline. Only three possible scenarios could result:

If Bush doesn't sign it, he's looks like he does not believe in his own program and, in that light, does not deserve the money anyway. The next logical step from there is an announcement and appropriation that provides a significantly lesser amount of money with the expressed, yet unwritten purpose of the money being used for redeployment. If Bush does not sign this, then the war effort, in terms of funding, is at an impasse via legislative impudence-- a stalemate. A storied and ennobled Congress faces an empowered yet ignominious executive. In this zero sum battle, assuming a significant majority of public opinion remains as it does today (against an expansion of the war), then "public opinion" tilts the scale in favor of Congress. Public opinion has to mean something, doesn't it?

If Bush does approve the deadlined appropriation and things don't get better in Iraq by November (less casualties, economic development and some semblance of civil tranquility), then he's had every chance and we should redeploy our troops to perform a limited function: to protect American interests in Iraq (read: oil, just maybe). Before redeploying in such a fashion, Congress passes a new war powers resolution that funds this small, relatively inert peacekeeping force in Iraq, while clearly stating that any foreign intervention in Iraq's government or military institutions or any strike against its interests is an act of war against the United States. Thus, the Iraqis are not only motivated but required to broker an internal solution and any group or nation who thinks to meddle in or attack Iraq will do so with knowledge that such action will immediately qualify them for a rain of space age Nintendo weapons they will never forget. As an aside, a provision for determining the identity of the meddler/attacker should contain a preponderance of the evidence standard to avoid any WMD type fiasco. We fixed the intelligence problem, right?

Finally, if Bush signs the deadlined appropriation and, through the determination that only comes when one is working against a deadline, things do get better, then we all win and can close this sad chapter of American history. Thereafter, perhaps Americans could summon the wherewithal to solve significant domestic problems like initiating significant funding for the research and development of sustainable energy, resolving equitably the Social Security/Medicare funding crisis and addressing the immigration issue before the "us vs. them" rhetoric metastasizes and tensions boil over into social disorder.

Now, that's a plan we can all live with.
----------------------------------------

[Update: (1/30/06) Looks like our Congress has heard my words. Senator Feingold, a recipient of the above letter, opened the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War” with these words:

“Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way. This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way ­– they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.”

Later the same day, Senator Obama, who also received my letter, said today from the Senate floor that he will be introducing legislation entitled the "Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007," in which Congress would require a redeployment of U.S. combat forces to start by May of this year and be completed by March 2008. Moreover, The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States."

So, given these "new" policies, it's clear that my letter set the Democratic (little "d" too) policy revolution into motion. Such is the power of words, which, in this case, only needed to be made available to our representatives who so treasure the input of citizens, and especially that of citizens not from their districts. A lesson from this bit of wisdom could not be more clearly enunciated than by Henry David Thoreau who cleverly formulated: "It takes two to speak the truth — one to speak and another to hear."

Bush's New Iraq Policy: Now is the Winter of Democratic Discontent

Astute readers will quickly note the latter portion of this essay's title is a bastardization of the opening line in Shakespeare’s Richard III, the story of a megalomaniacal villain who consolidates state power through murderous devices but is ultimately defeated and deposed. The play is riddled with intrigue and many of its themes and lines are surprisingly relevant to the ongoing confrontation between the Democrats and commander-in-chief Bush.

After dispatching his Secretary of Defense and two commanding generals in Iraq, Bush has set forth a plan to "surge" more than 20,000 troops into Iraq in the coming months to shore up our nation's position in a conflict he describes as "the decisive ideological struggle of our time." While admitting in his speech that some prior mistakes had been made, Bush quickly switched tact to the "task ahead" in an apparent attempt to galvanize popular support for a last push in Iraq. Interestingly, he was undercut by one of own, albeit unidentified, aides, who stated that "[N]obody is under illusions that the public is going to be turned around on this ... what you hope to accomplish with a speech like this is to show the public that there is a genuine, deep and fundamental change and there's a good chance of success."

Democrats, buoyed by their recent success in the mid-term election, have massed their troops and are preparing an invasion of Bush's metaphorical policy isle. The Democrat's response to Bush's new policy sought to rebut it by stating "[E]scalation of the war in Iraq is not the change the American people called for in the last election... it is time to begin the orderly redeployment of our troops so that they can begin coming home soon." A keen reader will note the difference in the terms of the two opposing sides, surge vs. escalation. The former seems temporary and evokes the images of a runner expending one last great effort to cross the finish line, while the latter plainly portrays an increase in hostilities accompanied by increased death and destruction. Such is the power of words. Though such differences in terminology can be useful in assessing the true motives of a speaker, the reader will find it advantageous to ignore such distinctions currently and focus on the crux of the Iraq issue: the threat of terrorism.

In President Bush's phraseology, the threat of terrorism stems from "extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life." It is his announced belief that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq (a "failure" in his words) would precipitate the following: "Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people."

In the author's estimation, the bolded text above is the true fear of the Bush administration, just as it has been of many a past administration. The nationalization of petroleum resources by regimes "unfriendly" with the United States serves to disrupt two very important goals of those who inhabit the halls of American political power: securing fossil fuels to insure the continuation of our hydrocarbon-dependent economy and, perhaps more importantly, providing Western-based corporations access to those resources such that they can exploit the production and sale of those resources and, in turn, stuff the pockets of their shareholders and, to a lesser degree, the politicians who guarantee their future access to those same or future resources with the occasional exercise of military force. For Bush, the Shakespearean parlance would replace "horse" with "oil, oil, my presidency for oil." For historical evidence, take a moment to learn the brutal history of the difference between oil nationalization and oil privatization in both Iraq and Iran. Before the reader sounds the anti-capitalist, conspiracy nut alarm, simply consider the following formulation: if the Darfur region of the Sudan sat on top of a valuable resource, would our President continue to ignore the plight of innocent victims of genocide?

Another fear that has been marched out incessantly over the last few years is that “fighting them over there keeps them from coming here.” Likewise, Bush asserts that if our troops were to leave Iraq, the “terrorists” would follow us here. The image is that the streets of America would be filled with terrorists detonating bombs and bringing down airplanes and the electricity grid. Well, if that is the case, then perhaps the policy and extraordinary amounts spent on the Department of Homeland Security need to be questioned. Ever since I’ve had to travel with my toiletries in a plastic bag, I feel safe that no terrorists could commandeer my aircraft or use a cellphone to call any of their friends. What about you?

The remainder of Bush's illusions that he claims would result from an American withdrawal/redeployment are equally asinine. The claim that "extremists would be emboldened and would gain new members" seems to reflect the current state of events with and swelling numbers in “extremists,” likely perpetuated by what they believe to be his unjustified aggression in foreign lands and continued support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Otherwise, you must believe that "radical Islamists" are spontaneously regenerating or multiplying through accelerated meiosis. If they are not, then either we're not really killing them, or as Bush would probably prefer, we're not killing them fast enough.

As far as Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology is concerned, that appears to be happening regardless of our presence in Iraq. Moreover, Iran has never claimed to have any goal other than developing nuclear technology for civilian purposes, albeit while they sit within range of Israeli nuclear missiles provided by the United States. Though no evidence has been presented that Iran seeks a nuclear capability for military purposes or that a compromise could not be reached to bring United Nations' or IAEA supervision to Iranian nuclear engineering, our President still found opportunity to implicitly threaten Iran in his speech.

To wit, Bush stated "We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." His logic is that one force (the U.S) is justified in attacking anyone (Iran or Syria) who supplies arms or support to a force that is a declared enemy (the "terrorists/insurgents" in Iraq). If this logic is justified, then Hezbollah had every right to attack the United States this summer as the United States rushed bombs to Israel to be dropped on the portions of Lebanon inhabited by Muslims. However, when the United States supplies the weapons its "defending freedom and democracy" and when Iran or Syria does it, that's "terrorism." The power of words indeed.

Another glaring example of the power of words is Bush's use of the phrase the "decisive ideological struggle of our times" to trump up the kind of us vs. them support his entire presidency has been based upon, in one form or the other. I simply cannot believe that someone hates me for my freedom and liberty. Instead, I imagine if a radical Muslim hates me as an American at all, it’s because of our culture's perverse worship of both the mundane and the materialistic. An interesting analogy can be drawn from a recent story originating in Florida. A small island community named Briny Breezes lies nestled between the Atlantic Ocean and the Intercoastal waterway in Palm Beach County, Florida. Since the 1920, families had rented lots in the winter to park their trailer on and enjoy some time in the Florida sun. In the 1960s, the community banded together to set up a cooperative community with shareholders, bylaws and the like. The lots were passed on through families and rare sales for the next forty years. The common man owned a small slice of paradise. Recently, a large developer came along and offered the community over $500 million to sell the entire island-- a boon that offered residents between $700K and $1M for their individual lots. Not surprisingly, over 80% of the residents voted in favor of the sale, which was celebrated in the local press and on Fox News as residents "cashing in." All they had to do was sell the most valuable asset many of them will ever possess. Sure it would have been worth twice as much in ten or twenty years, but our culture revels in and demands instant gratification. In contrast, the people of the Middle East are refusing the industrial powers offers to buy their land, even at a price far exceeding that any Briny Breezes resident could likely imagine. Saudi Arabia got into the game early and had rulers both shrewd and wise enough to allow only minimal Western influence over their oil industry while retaining the lion's share of the profits and piling that money into preserving its culture. That in essence is the difference in ideologies, a set of cultures in Iran and Iraq that are refusing to sell outright their assets to a Western culture that has proved for the last fifty years that if they can't buy it or control it through a coup, they'll bomb it.

The legal umbrella governing the metaphorical "war on terror" and Bush's new plan to intensify his war in Iraq is the Constitutional power of the President, as commander-in-chief, to wage war. As any seventh-grade civics student (should) know, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, while Article Two, Section Two, Clause Eight provides that the President "shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." The inherent tension between these two provisions was intended by the Founders as a way of splitting the war power between the legislative and judicial branches. By design, the legislative branch started and funded the wars while the President developed and executed the strategy. There is much ado about this tension between the executive and Congress and the reader can learn more here if so inclined. In any event, the power to wage war, at least temporarily, was bent in favor of the executive by the War Powers Act of 1973, which granted the executive the right to deploy forces without Congressional approval for at least sixty days, a period that could be extended indefinitely (or so it appears) by a joint resolution of Congress.

On September 18, 2001, Congress passed such a resolution, empowering President Bush to wage war "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." A close reading of the resolution, with a nod to the theory that there exists an unlimited network of Al-Qaeda terrorists, empowers the President to legally wage war against Al-Qaeda wherever it may be found. This was the legal basis for the recent military strike in Somalia. As many Democrats have argued since the war on terror has turned sour, this resolution gives the President power to wage an unending war until Al-Qaeda as long as such action prevents any "act of international terrorism against the United States" by Al-Qaeda. How the killing of some guy in a hut in Somalia, tens of thousands of miles away prevented an "international act of terrorism against the United States" is certainly a matter for intelligent, but not politically-correct, discussion.

A second resolution under the War Powers Act of 1973 was passed to allow the President to attack Iraq, as apparently the Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection was only sufficient to pass public, not legal, scrutiny. This second resolution, passed October 10, 2002, authorizes the President to use the armed forces to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and... enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." However, unlike the first resolution, the President must show that "acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations." That's why Bush always says we're fighting a war against terrorists in Iraq, not killing Iraqi citizens to exploit their resources.

Interestingly though, neither of these resolutions gives the President the power to attack Syria or Iran. Of course, he could use the initial sixty day period to launch strikes, but, in order for that effort to continue, the Democratic-controlled Congress would have to pass a new resolution to authorize Bush to continue waging war against Iran or Syria. Not even Sean Hannity or Michelle Malkin would have the unmitigated gall to suggest that Syria or Iran was involved in 9/11 (though, perhaps, I underestimate them). However, given the consequences of a military strike against Iran or Syria, it is unlikely that Congress would deny such a resolution amidst armed conflict with any nation. Thus, if Bush chooses to attack these countries on whatever basis, contrived or not, it is unlikely Congress would stop him.

As regular readers may remember, I presciently noted in early November that should Democrats gain control of Congress, their most effective technique to curtail Bush's war on terror would be to exercise another of the legislative branch's enumerated powers, namely the power to collect taxes and appropriate those monies for the defense of the country. The metaphorical "war on terror," however ridiculous its aims, must be funded by the Congress. To date, Bush has used the supplemental budgetary process to fund this "war." Before his rise to the Presidency, supplemental budget requests were used sparingly for initial funding of wars or disaster aid. Supplemental budget request do not have to abide by a myriad of rules applicable to normal budget requests, including a deficit threshold requirement. However, Congress still has the power to deny such requests or fashion their grant of monies in a way that can prevent those monies from being spent on particular purposes. Such budget control was exercised by Congress in the 1970s to fence in Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, which, some would argue, helped to end the Vietnam War.

However, as numerous pundits were quick to presume, an exercise of such restraint by Democrats today would be political suicide, leaving our soldiers without the funds they need to operate in Iraq. I disagree. If, for example, the Democrats were to take Bush to task on his pledge that control of all Iraqi provinces are to be handed over to Iraq in November 2007, they could make a very public announcement immediately that they will only grant funding for the war effort until that date. Despite conservative protestations, nobody believes that Congress would defund the war at the expense of the safety of American soldiers or that it wishes to engage in the day-to-day management of the war effort. But it is time to demand results-- to fish or cut bait. By setting a clear funding deadline, yet in a timeframe long enough to allow true progress, real results might be achieved. If results were achieved and our casualty rate dropped significantly while Iraqi government and military institutions matured, perhaps funding could be extended. If Bush fails however, Congress could appropriately curtail or terminate funding for the war, but would necessarily have to provide a stern warning to Iraq's neighbors that any intervention on their part to disrupt the nascent Iraqi democracy would be met with military force. Needless to say, if the November deadline approached and Bush signaled the expansion of his war instead of submitting to public scrutiny, then impeachment would not only be justified, but absolutely necessary. By setting forth this structure, Congress can insure that Bush's nation-building in Iraq is forced to meet discernible benchmarks and that the failure to meet those benchmarks ends what to date has been a failed, open-ended mission.

While heads will spin in the near future debating whether Bush's new policy will be effective or not, you, as a reader that has come this far, can be comfortable knowing that if his policy fails, there are ways to stop this war and still protect America and her interests abroad. However, if Congress fails to exercise the will such powers provide, then Bush's plan and America's immediate future may suffer the same fate as that of Richard III, who before his fall in the final battle at Bosworth Field tells his troops of his strategy, "If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell."

[Editor's Note: If you would like to be notified of the posting of new essays, simply enter your e-mail address in the box on the top of this page's right column.]