That from this op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal.
To understand why the Founders put war powers in the hands of the Presidency, look no further than the current spectacle in Congress on Iraq. What we are witnessing is a Federalist Papers illustration of criticism and micromanagement without responsibility.
Yes, indeed. The non-binding resolutions proposed and/or passed by Congress are shameful examples of politicians seeking cover. Most of them voted for the war authorization in 2003 but haven't the stomach to defend it now. With their eyes on the 2008 presidential elections, Democrats and Republicans alike are flip-flopping.
Worse yet, they are hiding behind polls that say Americans are weary of war. And yet the reason Americans are weary of war is because of the haranging of Democrats and the relentless drumbeat of negative stories from the press. When you've had three years of "Bush lied, people died" rhetoric, it becomes harder for people to support our goals. This isn't to excuse the ineptitude and bad behavior (such as Abu Gharib) displayed, but there really isn't any excuse for the same Left that used to decry fascism to oppose liberation. But they do.
Now we have the spectacle of Congress trying to micromanage the war, overstepping their Constitutional prerogatives, and making a mess of things to boot.
Their resolution--which passed 12-9--calls for Iraqis to "reach a political settlement" leading to "reconciliation," as if anyone disagrees with that necessity. But then it declares that the way to accomplish this is to wash American hands of the Iraq effort, proposing that U.S. forces retreat to protect the borders and hunt terrorists. The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will miraculously conclude that they have must settle their differences. A kind of reverse field of dreams: If we don't come, they will build it.
The irony is that this is not all that far from the "light footprint" strategy that the Bush Administration was following last year and which these same Senators called a failure. It is precisely the inability to provide security in Baghdad that has led to greater sectarian violence, especially among Shiites victimized by Sunni car bombs. The purpose of the new Bush counterinsurgency strategy is to provide more security to the population in the hopes of making a political settlement easier.
Don't expect the Senators to remember that the strategy they now want is the one they rejected last year. That's old news. New news is that they want out--how fast depends on the Democrat talking--and they want out ASAP.
In addition to being feckless, all of this is unconstitutional. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole Constitutional authority to manage the war effort. Congress has two explicit war powers: It has the power to declare war, which in the case of Iraq it essentially did with its resolution of 2003. It also has the power to appropriate funds.
There is a long and unsettled debate over whether Congress can decide to defund specific military operations once it has created a standing Army. We lean toward those who believe it cannot, but the Founders surely didn't imagine that Congress could start dictating when and where the 101st Airborne could be deployed once a war is under way.
Congress won't cut off funds for the soldiers because it would look bad. But don't expect a little thing like the Constitution to get in the way of them trying to run the war.
|