[NYTr] Stop the Iran War Before It Starts
ny...@olm.blythe-systems.com
The Nation - Jan 24, 2007
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070205&s=ritter
Stop the Iran War Before It Starts
by SCOTT RITTER
In April 2001 I was invited to Washington, DC, by a group of Republican
Congressmen collectively known as the Theme Team. The subject was Iraq.
It seems that the Theme Team, responsible for monitoring the
ideological pulse of America, was somewhat perturbed that a
self-described Republican and former Marine officer, not to mention a
former UN weapons inspector, was trash-talking America's Iraq policy.
While this sort of action might have been acceptable during the tenure
of a Democratic President like Bill Clinton, it was not part of the
grand design when it came to the presidency of George W. Bush.
The conference room was packed with more than seventy Representatives
and their staffs. I provided an opening in which I stressed that the
case being made against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, centered as it was on
the issue of WMD, did not hold water. I chastised the Republican
lawmakers with a warning: If they continued to support the policy of
confronting Saddam's Iraq over a trumped-up charge, they would not only
get America involved in a war it could not win but would end up
destroying the credibility of the Republican Party, and turn control of
the Congress, and eventually the Presidency, to the Democrats. There
were questions asked, and answers given, and in the end most thanked me
for what they called an "illuminating" meeting.
Then they proceeded to do nothing.
Today that warning has become reality. America is bogged down in a
losing war in Iraq, the Republican Party lies in shambles over its
partisan support of a policy that was never debated or discussed but
rather rubber-stamped and the Democrats now control the Senate and the
House of Representatives. There is a very real chance that the
Democrats will take control of the presidency in 2008, since the
debacle that is Iraq will not be resolved prior to that date.
President Bush will go down in history with complete ownership of the
Iraq War. The Republican Party will also be tarnished by this legacy.
It doesn't matter that the policies of sanctions-based containment and
regime change, which set in motion the events leading up to the US-led
invasion of Iraq in March 2003, were conceived of and implemented by
Clinton, or that the Democrats in Congress were as complicit (and
incompetent) in their support of those policies through their
"bipartisan" support of both the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (which set
America's policy toward Iraq as regime change) and the War
Authorization Resolution of 2002, which punted away Congress's
constitutional responsibilities when it came to the declaration of war.
To most Americans, the war in Iraq is a Republican war, and blame has
been placed squarely at the doorstep of the Republican Commander in
Chief who got us there, George W. Bush.
In his recent State of the Union address, Bush spent a great deal of
time speaking about Iraq and his plans for how to achieve "victory"
there. The Democrats, in their various responses, rightly criticized
the President and his plans as unrealistic and insupportable. The stage
has been set for an old-fashioned showdown between executive and
legislative power, where the advantages are stacked in favor of those
who control the power of the purse (i.e., Congress), since the
President's new "surge" strategy hinges not only on the availability of
troops to be surged but also on the money to pay for it.
When it comes to Iraq, newly empowered Democrats in Congress are
getting a free ride, so to speak. While the honorable (and right) thing
to do would be to combine their just criticism of the President's
policy with a vision (and corresponding plan) of their own on how to
proceed in Iraq, the Democrats instead seem to have taken the less
risky and more politically savvy path of simply pointing an accusatory
finger at the President, demanding that he fix what he broke. There is
no coherent, broad-based Democratic plan for Iraq other than to
criticize the President. In the case of Iraq, Democrats have
demonstrated that they are just as capable of letting American service
members die in order to preserve their own political ambition as their
Republican counterparts are.
While this is abominable, the Democrats will most likely get away with
it. After all, the horror that is present-day Iraq did not happen on
their watch. Iraq is a Republican debacle, and it will continue to play
out as such politically on the domestic front.
If I were to be invited to go to Washington today and speak to the
Democratic equivalent of the Republican Theme Team, I would spend very
little time on the issue of Iraq. Right or wrong, the Iraq War was a
product of domestic American politics, not any genuine threat to
national security, and as such the solution for Iraq will be derived
not from whatever happens inside Iraq, surge or no surge, but rather
from what happens here in America. It will take two or more national
election cycles for the American electorate to purge Congress of those
elements, Republican and Democratic alike, who are responsible for the
Iraqi quagmire.
Until American politicians from either party show that they care more
about the lives of the men and women in the armed forces who operate in
harm's way than they do about their own political fortunes, we will
remain in Iraq. It takes courage to stand up against this war when the
tide of public opinion continues to hold out hope for victory. "Doing
the right thing" is a thing of the past, it seems. "Doing the
politically expedient thing" is the current trend. The American public
may have articulated frustration with the course of events in Iraq, but
this feeling is derived more from a frustration at being defeated than
from any moral outrage over getting involved in a war that didn't need
to be fought in the first place. Congress takes its cues from the
American people, and until the American people are as outraged over the
mere fact we are in Iraq as they are over the rising costs of the
conflict--human, moral and financial--then Congress will continue to
dither.
If I were to address a Democrat Theme Team equivalent, I would focus my
effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them
political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President
Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled
Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The
conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the
Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however,
will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and
future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the
Democrats.
I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and
the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe
Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he
and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but
genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures
when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and
grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat,"
especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to
back up the rhetoric.
Summon the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or any
other lobby promoting confrontation with Iran, to the forefront, so
that the warnings they offer in whispers from a back room can be
articulated before the American public. Hold these conjurers of doom
accountable for their positions by demanding they back them up with
hard fact. See if the US intelligence community concurs with the dire
warnings put forward by these pro-war lobbyists, and if it doesn't, ask
who, then, is driving US policy toward Iran? Those mandated by public
law and subjected to the oversight of Congress? Or others, operating
outside any framework representative of the will of the American people?
If a real case, based on facts as they pertain to the genuine national
security interests of the United States, can be made for a
confrontation with Iran that leads to military conflict, so be it.
America should never shy away from defending that which legitimately
needs defending. The sacrifice expected of our military forces, while
tragic, will be defensible. But if the case for war with Iran is
revealed to be as illusory as was the case for war with Iraq, then
Congress must take action to stop this conflict from occurring. This is
the Democrats' issue now, the one that will make or break them in 2008
and beyond.
If hearings show no case for war with Iran, then Congress must act to
insure that the United States cannot move toward conflict with that
nation on the strength of executive dictate alone. As things currently
stand, the Bush Administration, emboldened with a vision of the unitary
executive unprecedented in our nation's history, believes it has all of
the legal authority it requires when it comes to engaging Iran
militarily. The silence of Congress following the President's decision
to dispatch a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf has been
deafening. The fact that a third carrier battle group (the USS Ronald
Reagan) will probably join these two in the near future has also gone
unnoticed by most, if not all, in Congress.
The President and his advisers believe that they are acting in
accordance with the authorities given to the executive by the US
Constitution, and by legislative authority as well, as provided for in
both the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution of
September 14, 2001 (after the attacks of September 11, where Congress
not only authorized the President to use military force against the
perpetrators of the terror attacks but also against those nations
deemed to be harboring people or organizations involved in the
attacks), and the Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq
resolution of October 2002 (where Congress concurred that any
presidential action would be "consistent with the United States and
other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those
nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001").
The National Security Strategy of the United States, most recently
promulgated in March 2006, lists Iran as the number-one threat to the
United States, not only in terms of its yet-to-be-proven nuclear
weapons program but also from its status, as declared by the Bush White
House, as the world's leading state sponsor of terror. The Bush
Administration has repeatedly linked Iran with the perpetrators of the
9/11 terror attacks and has accused Iran of harboring people and
organizations involved in that attack. If left unchallenged by
Congress, the Bush Administration firmly believes it has all of the
authority required to initiate military action against Iran without
Congressional approval.
This is not an idle statement on my part. One needs only to read the
words of President Bush during his recent State of the Union address:
Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this earth
with the unbelievers among us." These men are not given to idle words,
and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement.
In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating
danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are
also determined to dominate the Middle East.
Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is
funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah, a group second only to Al
Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.
The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same
totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they
slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes: They want
to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East and gain the
weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale. In the sixth year since
our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers
have ended. They have not.
And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and
proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement and military
action to do our duty, to find these enemies and to protect the
American people. [Author's emphasis]
What is unrealized in this passage is the loud applause given by
members of Congress to the President's words.
Democrats in Congress have the opportunity to nip this looming disaster
in the bud. The fact that most of the Democratic members of Congress
who enjoy tenure voted in favor of the resolutions giving the President
such sweeping authority is moot. Democrats are all capable of pleading
that they were acting under the influence of a Republican-controlled
body and unable to adequately ascertain through effective oversight the
genuine state of affairs. This is no longer the case. The Democrats in
Congress are in firm control of their own destiny, and with it the
destiny of America. A war with Iran will pale in comparison with the
current conflict in Iraq. And if there is a war with Iran, this
Congress will be held fully accountable.
Democrats should seek immediate legislative injunctions to nullify the
War Powers' authority granted to the President in September 2001 and
October 2002 when it comes to Iran. Congress should pass a joint
resolution requiring the President to fully consult with Congress about
any national security threat that may be posed to the United States
from Iran and demand that no military action be initiated by the United
States against Iran without a full, constitutionally mandated
declaration of war. Those who embrace the notion of a unitary executive
will scoff at the concept of a Congressional declaration of war. They
hold that the power to make war is not an enumerated power per se.
While statutory authorization (i.e., a formal declaration of war) is
enumerated in the Constitution, the reality (as reflected by the
current War Powers Act) is that the powers of bringing America to a
state of war are not so much separated as they are linked and
sequenced, with Congress exercising its control over budgetary
appropriations and the President through command.
There may well be merit to this line of argument. But one thing is
perfectly clear: Only Congress holds the power of the purse. While a
President may commit American forces to combat without the consent of
Congress (for periods of up to 180 days), he cannot spend money that
has not been appropriated. There is, in the passing of any budget,
inherent authority given to the President when it comes to national
defense. However, Congress can, if it wants to, put specific
restrictions on the President's ability to use the people's money. A
recent example occurred in 1982, when Congress passed the Boland
Amendment to restrict funding for executive-sponsored actions, covert
and overt, in Nicaragua. While it is in the process of getting a handle
on America's policy vis-`-vis Iran, Congress would do well to pass a
resolution that serves as a new Boland Amendment for Iran. Such an
amendment could read like this:
An amendment to prohibit offensive military operations, covert or
overt, being commenced by the United States of America against the
Islamic Republic of Iran, without the expressed consent of the Congress
of the United States. This amendment reserves the right of the
President, commensurate with the War Powers Act, to carry out actions
appropriate for the defense of the United States if attacked by Iran.
However, any funds currently appropriated by Congress for use in
support of ongoing operations by the United States Armed Forces are
hereby prohibited from being allocated for any pre-emptive military
action, whether overt or covert in nature, without the expressed prior
consent by the Congress of the United States of America.
However it is worded, the impact of such an amendment would be
immediate and could forestall any military moves planned by the Bush
Administration against Iran until Congress can fully familiarize itself
with the true nature of any threat posed to the United States.
President Bush seems to be hellbent on making war with Iran. The
passage of time is, in effect, the enemy of his Administration's goals
and objectives. By buying the time required to fully study the issues
pertaining to Iran, and by forestalling the possibility of immediate
pre-emptive action through budgetary restrictions, Congress may very
well spare America, and the world, another tragedy like Iraq. If a
Democrat-controlled Congress fails to take action, and America finds
itself embroiled in yet another Middle East military misadventure,
there will be a reckoning at the polls in 2008. It will not bode well
for the Democrats currently in power, or those seeking power in the
future.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================