Watching Congress tie itself up debating
resolutions “disapproving” BushCheney’s escalation in Iraq is like watching someone trying to catch water in a net (thanks to
Billy Bragg). Much hemming, hawing and harumphing goes on but in the end, it don’t mean nuthin’. BushCheney is bound and determined to drive the Iraq war to yet another level of disaster and all Congress can do is debate the color of the steering wheel cover.
I realize that Congressional power and authority over specific actions of the executive branch is limited and that Congress is at best a cumbersome beast but, Holy Mother of Christ! most senators and representatives are not even considering anything that would actually change the course of this war. Nope, the best they can do is a resolution that has all the restraining effect of dental floss stretched across a busy freeway.
And even that effort requires an inordinate amount of time. I mean, Congress has been in session almost 30 days, supposedly representing an electorate that no longer supports the Iraq war and what has it done in the face of BushCheney’s determined escalation. Nothing. Nothing! Just debating words that have no meaning. Meanwhile the war goes on, more Americans go to Iraq. and more people die with no end in sight.
I heard Ruth Marcus on the Diane Rehm Show on Friday opining that the resolutions are the beginning of a debate on the Iraq war that has not previously taken place in America, a debate that moves beyond specific strategies and tactics (ie, escalation or surge) to address overall policies and goals for America in that region. I want to believe that’s true. It would be a welcome change but I wonder how likely that really is. I look back at Vietnam and the “lessons” we supposedly learned from that experience and don’t see that we learned much of anything. I mean, here we are, mired in a civil war that we unleashed without much of a clue about how to proceed and largely unaware of how limited our vaunted military prowess is in such circumstances.
Perhaps America will have that discussion. Lord knows, we need it. The United States emerged from World War II as the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power and immediately went into hysterics over Communism, surrendering civil liberties and pouring massive funds into a sprawling military-industrial complex. Now that threat no longer exists, America still runs scared, surrendering even more Constitutional freedoms and throwing money into military adventures against a threat that pales in comparison to previous challenges in American history. It’s as if the 9-11 attacks simply obliterated any sense of perspective and rationality, sending America into a paroxysm of fear that has led to the blunder in Iraq. In that environment, anyone who suggests that we THINK about what we are doing is labeled “weak”, “an America hater” or “friend of the terrorists”.
Senator Feingold has introduced S.121 to redeploy all but “minimal” American forces within 180 days. Senator Obama has introduced S.433 to redefine American policy on Iraq (text not yet available). The Republicans call this “surrender” and “cut and run”. I call it sensible. Unless this nation is willing to keep pouring men and arms into Iraq indefinitely, we need to be looking for the way out. And, for me, that way out has always involved engagement with other nations in the region. We dealt with the Soviet Union and the threats it posed to America in that way and managed to keep two nations armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons from incinerating each other and the world. I think we can deal with terrorism, which is a much, much lesser threat than the Soviet Union ever was, in a far saner manner.
The 9-11 attacks were horrific and terrible. No doubt about that. And clearly, anti-American groups are more than willing to attack and kill Americans wherever possible. But these threats are manageable with good intelligence, international cooperation and limited military action to disrupt and destroy cells and their organizers. Strengthened control over nuclear and other materials, surveillance of suspect groups and counter-intelligence are all far more effective in dealing with terrorism. So too, is looking for root causes, understanding why terrorists seek to attack us. And no, it’s not because they are all crazy; they somehow think following the distorted reasoning of terrorist leaders will give meaning to their lives.
There are many ways to deal with terrorist threats. To its credit, the BushCheney administration has actually implemented some of the actions I’ve described above. But far more detrimental has been its blind militarism that has destabilized an already inflamed region and created an effective recruiting tool for anti-American terrorism. Unfortunately, BushCheney controls the Executive Branch, the action arm of American government. The Democrats control the Congress, the talking branch, and have far less direct control of American actions in the world.
But Congress is not devoid of options. Here’s what I would like to see Congress do. Clearly express its opposition to BushCheney’s escalation in Iraq. Even if Republican opposition and BushCheney’s veto stymies actual legislation, Americans will know who stands for effective policy and who wants to keep pouring American money and manpower into the Iraq meatgrinder. I think Congress should withdraw or significantly amend the Authorization to Use Military Force that it so unwisely gave to BushCheney in 2002. The past four years have clearly demonstrated that he is not fit to command such broad, sweeping power.
One last thought. Republicans constantly warn that Congress should not send “mixed messages” to our adversaries or take action that will “discourage” our troops. These warnings are merely cover for continuing failed policy. Our adversaries and our troops know that Americans have very strong doubts about the war. The Baker-Hamilton Commission correctly pointed out that America cannot continue to wage war in Iraq without the support of the American people. BushCheney may have had that support back in 2003 but he has more than squandered it. At this point, Congress’ failure to take significant action in response to Americans’ wishes is a betrayal of the public trust.
postscriptTaylor Marsh also covers much the same ground in
this post. And for a lesson on a previous "surge", check out
this speech. Remember how
that worked out?
