Under Bush's prescription, we would be in Iraq for as long as any insurgency was successful in continuing the present state of violence in Iraq; the state of violence that the commanding general in Iraq says he can't contain without the sacrifices of even more American soldiers deployed there. Many of those deployed would have already endured historic, repeated tours into Iraq's battle zone; others would arrive as dangerously unprepared as Bush and the Pentagon have, admittedly, rendered the majority of our forces.
It's apparent to everyone, except Bush and his generals, that our nation's defenders are being sacrificed in Iraq without regard to their safety, security, or well-being. Even more damning, Bush has balanced our soldiers' sacrifices against the importance of his 'mission' in Iraq and decided that, the comfort and embrace of the increasingly indifferent regime he helped install is more important than preserving our nation's defenders' lives and livelihoods. As long as our soldiers are in place - doing the work of the Iraqi military and police - there will be little incentive for the Iraqis to reach as far as they should to settle their differences with those resisting their puppet rule, and the pretext for using their military to repress and intimidate the opposition into obedience remains in place.
It's a betrayal of our democracy that Bush has ceded our foreign policy to the "generals on the ground." They will always recommend adding more troops to bolster the continuing mission; even more so, to protect our hunkering forces, as their presence and increased occupation sparks even more threatening resistance. Bush has confused their ability to fight and prevail for progress; satisfied with the 1-3 soldiers a day who are losing their lives defending against an enemy they cannot recognize. He's reduced the question of whether our soldiers should remain in Iraq to whether they can circle the wagons around Baghdad, the center of his manufactured regime. But, the Constitution says that the president is to command the generals, not the other way around.
More importantly, no matter who prevails in the struggle for authority to commit and direct forces between the White House and Congress, there is no dispute at all over where the authority lies between our Legislature and the Military. Congress has the constitutional and traditional authority to cap troop levels, restrict the escalation of troops, and set a date certain for troop deployment or withdrawal. All of that authority lies in their appropriation of money which would enable the scope, size, or duration of an engagement or conflict. Bush, however, thinks the exercise of our nation's military is a matter best left to the Executive and the Pentagon brass.
In his radio address this weekend, Bush complains about Congress' intention to reign in the commander-in-chief and his generals from their unadvised militarism:
"The bill Congress is considering," Bush complained, "would undermine General Petraeus and the troops under his command just as these critical security operations are getting under way."
"First, the bill would impose arbitrary and restrictive conditions on the use of war funds and require the withdrawal of forces by the end of this year if these conditions are not met.," he said. "These restrictions would handcuff our generals in the field by denying them the flexibility they need to adjust their operations to the changing situation on the ground. And these restrictions would substitute the mandates of Congress for the considered judgment of our military commanders."
It is exactly those "mandates of Congress" which our constitution intends for our legislators to use to trump the "judgment of our military commanders." The generals don't need 'flexibility' unless they intend to aid Bush in defying Congress' will. It's more than a mockery of our tradition of civilian control over our nation's military to suggest that Congress should defer their own intent to the whim of the entity they oversee.
The Supreme Court during WW2 ruled that Congress' shared authority over the military "is not restricted to the winning of victories in the field and the repulse of enemy forces. It embraces every phase of the national defense, including the protection of war materials and the members of the armed forces from injury and from the dangers which attend the rise, prosecution and progress of war."
"Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our troops, without strings," Bush said. But, his request won't be rubber-stamped by the new Democratic majority. If Bush wants money to further his militarism in Iraq or elsewhere, he'll either accept Congress' "strings" or find himself some other country to fund his occupation whose legislators don't mind if he rapes their treasury and tramples over their laws and traditions like he and his republican enablers have grown accustomed to here at home.
It's apparent to everyone, except Bush and his generals, that our nation's defenders are being sacrificed in Iraq without regard to their safety, security, or well-being. Even more damning, Bush has balanced our soldiers' sacrifices against the importance of his 'mission' in Iraq and decided that, the comfort and embrace of the increasingly indifferent regime he helped install is more important than preserving our nation's defenders' lives and livelihoods. As long as our soldiers are in place - doing the work of the Iraqi military and police - there will be little incentive for the Iraqis to reach as far as they should to settle their differences with those resisting their puppet rule, and the pretext for using their military to repress and intimidate the opposition into obedience remains in place.
It's a betrayal of our democracy that Bush has ceded our foreign policy to the "generals on the ground." They will always recommend adding more troops to bolster the continuing mission; even more so, to protect our hunkering forces, as their presence and increased occupation sparks even more threatening resistance. Bush has confused their ability to fight and prevail for progress; satisfied with the 1-3 soldiers a day who are losing their lives defending against an enemy they cannot recognize. He's reduced the question of whether our soldiers should remain in Iraq to whether they can circle the wagons around Baghdad, the center of his manufactured regime. But, the Constitution says that the president is to command the generals, not the other way around.
More importantly, no matter who prevails in the struggle for authority to commit and direct forces between the White House and Congress, there is no dispute at all over where the authority lies between our Legislature and the Military. Congress has the constitutional and traditional authority to cap troop levels, restrict the escalation of troops, and set a date certain for troop deployment or withdrawal. All of that authority lies in their appropriation of money which would enable the scope, size, or duration of an engagement or conflict. Bush, however, thinks the exercise of our nation's military is a matter best left to the Executive and the Pentagon brass.
"The bill Congress is considering," Bush complained, "would undermine General Petraeus and the troops under his command just as these critical security operations are getting under way."
"First, the bill would impose arbitrary and restrictive conditions on the use of war funds and require the withdrawal of forces by the end of this year if these conditions are not met.," he said. "These restrictions would handcuff our generals in the field by denying them the flexibility they need to adjust their operations to the changing situation on the ground. And these restrictions would substitute the mandates of Congress for the considered judgment of our military commanders."
It is exactly those "mandates of Congress" which our constitution intends for our legislators to use to trump the "judgment of our military commanders." The generals don't need 'flexibility' unless they intend to aid Bush in defying Congress' will. It's more than a mockery of our tradition of civilian control over our nation's military to suggest that Congress should defer their own intent to the whim of the entity they oversee.
The Supreme Court during WW2 ruled that Congress' shared authority over the military "is not restricted to the winning of victories in the field and the repulse of enemy forces. It embraces every phase of the national defense, including the protection of war materials and the members of the armed forces from injury and from the dangers which attend the rise, prosecution and progress of war."
"Congress needs to approve emergency funding for our troops, without strings," Bush said. But, his request won't be rubber-stamped by the new Democratic majority. If Bush wants money to further his militarism in Iraq or elsewhere, he'll either accept Congress' "strings" or find himself some other country to fund his occupation whose legislators don't mind if he rapes their treasury and tramples over their laws and traditions like he and his republican enablers have grown accustomed to here at home.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
