The occupation ended with the "surge" last November. The Democratic surge in the Congress that was the result of the election, that is. |
The American people want to pull the plug on the Iraqi occupation by a 2 to 1 majority. Because Democrats ran on a platform of doing just that, voters elected Democratic majorities in both houses of congress. That was the beginning of the end of the occupation. The rest is just process.
The Process The appropriations bill to fund the occupation still has to go through the conference committee, but it is clear at this early stage that the bill will be generous to Furious George. It will allow somewhere around a year (give or take) for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. It will also include around $100 billion -- or around $333 for every man, woman and child in America -- to fund the withdrawal. This will allow Bush to gradually and gracefully back out of Iraq. If he is smart, he will sign the deal and adhere to it. But he is not smart, and he will veto it. Estimates on when the current funding will run out vary, but they all target this spring/summer. If Bush vetoes the appropriation, he will run out of money for the occupation within a few months at best. Then the occupation grinds to a halt. Why should Bush sign this deal? Because this is the best deal he is going to get. The Republicans in the House and Senate did an impressive job of retaining their voting block. There were only a handful of defections. But each week that passes brings us closer to the next election cycle. There are 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 2008, and they all watched their colleagues get slaughtered in the last cycle while supporting Bush's occupation. Every time they look over their shoulders, they see Chuck Schumer breathing down their necks! They DO NOT want to run as supporters of the occupation. The worst thing that can happen to a Senator (short of criminal conviction) is to lose his/her seat. That's "game over." Also, the Democrats only need to take a half-dozen or so of those seats in the next cycle to establish a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Republican senators know that if they have to run as supporters of the occupation (which will be 5 years old by then), a filibuster-proof Democratic majority is all but certain. That's assuming that Republicans aren't already so damaged that they have a chance of preventing that in any case. So with every passing week, the Republican block in the Senate will begin to crumble as vulnerable Republican senators begin to peel away one-by-one from the block of occupation supporters. Already some Republican senators (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Norm Coleman…and even John Warner) who voted with the Republican block at the same time distanced themselves from the occupation. And for every one of those defections, the Democrats will gain leverage in the occupation debate. That means that each successive appropriations bill will be less favorable to Bush. The longer he holds out, the worse will be his end of the bargain. That's why, if he's smart, he'll take this deal. An unfortunate issue that must also be addressed is the redirection of some of the money to non-occupation related projects. No one yet knows how much of that spending will remain in the final version of the bill, but it appears at this point that it will be around $20 billion, or about $33 for every American. Contrast that to the expected military budget for next year of $650 billion, or around $2100 for every American. While it is difficult to defend the inclusion of these unrelated items in the bill, it should be emphasized that it is a relatively small amount of money. This unrelated spending comprises about 16 percent of the total $120 billion allocation. By the way, if we used that same formula to redirect spending in next years military budget, we would beat around $104 billion worth of swords into plowshares. Would that be a bad thing? Do we really need to spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined? And it's not like the Republicans never included any earmarks in a bill either! A New Reality But an important fact hasn't sunk in yet for Bush. He doesn't really yet understand that his imperial presidency is over. Bush's reality does not yet include the fact that the congress will no longer rubber-stamp his policies. This Democratic led congress will assert it's role as policy maker, and it will expect Bush in his role as executive to carry out those policies. Until the consequences of the last election permeate Bush's mindset, he will continue to make decisions based on the old circumstances. Those decisions will not be in his, nor the nations best interest. Does Bush really expect the Democratic congress to fall in line with his policy of endless occupation if he simply vetoes this bill? (Another relevant question…will the Democrats indeed cave in just when they've achieved the upper hand? Surely not…) Occupation supporter’s say that they need another seven months to see if the latest plan (the "surge") will work. If they really have a plan for success (whatever success is), why didn't they implement it over the past seven months...or the seven before that...or the seven before that? How many times will we "turn a corner" before we realize we're going in circles? In four years, F.D.R./Truman transformed an anemic depression era military into a great fighting force. They stormed the beaches of Normandy, fought the Nazi's back all the way to Berlin and ended the war in Europe. Then they battled their way up the Pacific rim while they developed the atomic bomb and won the war in the Pacific. In the same four years, Bush hasn't even secured the road from Baghdad to the airport. How much more time does he need? A lot has been made recently about the fact that the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And that's true. But what hasn't been emphasized is that Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution empowers the congress to declare war, as well as to fund the army and navy. It also grants congress the authority "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" as well as "To provide for calling forth the militia …and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States" The intent is clear. Congress has the constitutional authority to pull the plug on this occupation. Bush has two overarching problems. They are (1) two-thirds of the American people want the plug pulled on the occupation and (2) we live in a democracy. Those over riding facts cannot be rationalized away. The occupation ended last November. The rest is just process. The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress. The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces. The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.” It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended. Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king. Source: "Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War" By ADAM COHEN - NY Times - July 23, 2007 |
No one has submitted a comment on this statement yet.
Be the first and submit your feedback below.
Submit your comment below |