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.
----------------------------------------
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."
3 comments:
We should just withdraw. It is not as if things are going to be much worse with us out of there.
Let things shake out some and then, if necessary reinvade with a plan (and sufficient force) necessary to get theings straight.
You are at least making sense on this one. Two problems I see with your "plan". 1. The "new" Congress doesn't have the backbone to set a deadline (a. what would they complain about in November if it worked? b. they arent' stupid politically - US opinion is definitely moving towards withdrawl, but isn't far enough to cut funding to the boys in uniform.
2. Even if the November deadline is met there is no way that we will be in postion to fully withdraw, that will take months if not years from a logistical standpoint. You would need to amend your plan to leave more meat on the bone after Nov, even with victory.
Question: When was the last soldier withdrawn from Europe and Asia post WWII?
Answer: We still have "peacekeeping" forces present on both continents to this day.
Glad to see that I'm at least making sense-- now let's see if I can extend that service to your comment. First, a deadline is necessary to create a measurable goal of progress. Without it, we'll be trying new plans for the next year and a half. People don't want new plans, they want progress. Casting such desires as synonomous with a "cut in funding to the boys [and girls now too] in uniform" is ridiculous. Do you really believe that Congress would cut funding immediately to leave the troops in harm's way? Of course not, but might President Bush decide to keep them there without Congressional funding?
Second, your point re withdrawal is well taken, given that I estimate the logistics of redeploying to take months, not years (unless you're talking about withdrawing their oil from the ground). However, your Q&A analogy with WWII is disingenuous. After WWII, no nation occupied by U.S. forces sought to combat those forces by insurgency. The more correct analogy, in my estimation, is to Vietnam. So, ask yourself, when was the last soldier withdrawn from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia after the Vietnam War?
Post a Comment