congressional dems do not need "a plan for withdrawal from Iraq...."

[mike_c]

We've all heard numerous permutations of this demand for Congress to come up with a "plan" for withdrawing from Iraq. Some dems have even acquiesced and suggested plans, e.g. Dennis Kucinich. But such demands are disingenuous at best.

Planning how to achieve strategic military objectives, like withdrawing from a theater of battle, is not Congress's job. It's not their place to devise such a "plan." Their job is to authorize and fund war, or to refuse such authorization and funding. In doing so they define the overall strategic objectives-- either defeat the enemy, or refrain from war. In the present case, all the Congress needs to do is withdraw the authorization for war against Iraq and stop appropriating funds. It is up to the military, and the commander-in-chief, to execute a "plan" to achieve that objective.

A "plan for withdrawal" is a plan for troop movements. That is not Congress's responsibility, at least not under the Constitution.

As I've argued elsewhere, the Pentagon certainly has a "plan" for withdrawal from Iraq-- if not, then the general staff is criminally negligent. The "plan" simply awaits the proper orders for implementation.

Congress can-- and should-- pass legislation defining broad foreign policy objectives, and Congress will certainly have to legislate in the aftermath of the disaster in Iraq, if for no other purpose than to appropriate funds for reparations (or "reconstruction"). But Congress need play no role in planning a withdrawal-- it needs only to require one. The "plan" is the executive's and the Pentagon's responsibility.

[Vincardog]

1. The GOP wants the DemocratIC party to take ownership of Bush's WAR

[mike_c]

2. I think that's exactly correct-- any democratic "plan" becomes the standard...

...by which to judge success and failure. But that's a tar-baby of epic proportions, since the the only question about the misadventure in Iraq-- and the entire foreign policy that spawned it-- is how awful will the inevitable failure be.

If the Congress simply says "no more," then the executive is stuck with his own quagmire.

[Vincardog]

3. That is why the congress has to withdraw the authorization and let the Chimp

have 60 days to get the F out of Iraq. aWoL's war he wanted it, he started it, He can get our forces out of it.

[Cabcere]

4. "...at least not under the Constitution."

Well, there's your problem right there. Won't you quit waving the Constitution in our faces already?! It's just a G-D- piece of paper, anyway! :sarcasm:

Seriously, though, I think you raise some good points. :kick: & R.

[ProSense]

5. Actually, that's not correct.

January 4, 2007 02:29 PM Posted By News Questions & comments 18

Guest Blogger: The Congress As Surge Protector

By Neil Kinkopf

Snip...

Congress Can Forbid the President from Escalating the Iraq War without Renewed Authorization

Even if the President does not submit his plan for congressional approval, Congress is constitutionally empowered to require him to do so.

The Constitution grants Congress extensive war powers – so extensive, in fact, that Chief Justice John Marshall once wrote that “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the Acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides ….” (Talbot v. Seeman (1801).) These powers include the power to declare war; grant letters of marque and reprisal; raise and support an army and navy; make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; provide for the calling forth of the militia; and to lay taxes and appropriate funds to provide for the common defense, with the proviso that no appropriation for such a purpose can be for more than two years. The President is made the commander in chief and is authorized to appoint, with Senate confirmation, such military officers as Congress may by statute create.

This structure is an intentional departure from the British approach. The King was set up, in Blackstone’s phrase, as the “generalissimo”; he was authorized to initiate and to prosecute war of any scope on his own authority. Under the U.S. Constitution, by contrast, it is Congress that has the power to initiate and regulate war, while the President is authorized to command the resulting war effort.

As Commander in Chief, the President’s role is to prosecute the war that Congress has authorized. The President may not go beyond this authorization.

This understanding of the President’s power as Commander in Chief is plain enough from the text of the Constitution itself. It has also been the consistent interpretation of the Courts. Chief Justice John Marshall set forth this interpretation in a series of cases arising from the naval war with France. Most notably, in Little v. Barreme, Chief Justice Marshall held that the President’s war powers are defined by statute and may not exceed statutory limits.

Snip...

The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous. When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President “no,” the President must comply. Thus, Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq War by either of two mechanisms. First, it may directly define limits on the scope of that war—and forbid the President from exceeding these limits—such as by imposing a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict. Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations riders that limit the use of appropriated funds. Indeed, the reason that the Constitution limits military appropriations to two years is to prevent Congress from abdicating its responsibility to oversee ongoing military engagements.

Snip...

Before embarking on any escalation, the President should seek the assent of Congress and the American people. If he will not, the American people should understand that Congress has the power to stop him.

Neil Kinkopf is an Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University. He served as a constitutional advisor to the Clinton Administration from 1993-1997 in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

link

[mike_c]

6. I'm sorry, but it appears to me that the article you quoted...

...says essentially the same thing as my OP.

[ProSense]

10. Here is

more.

[mike_c]

12. I agree completely and don't see any disparity between that and...

...my remarks. Congress has complete authority to revoke the authorization for war and the appropriation of funds for the war. It does not need to offer any "withdrawal plan" in order to do so, nor should it. Advancing any such plan not only usurps the military's prerogative, but it constitutes ownership of the consequences. This is Bush's fiasco-- let him own the consequences.

[EFerrari]

7. What is so hard about saying "No, we won't pay for this"?

I mean, have none of our congressional Dems ever parented teenagers?

No, you can't have the car.

No, you can't charge that on my card, we can't afford it.

No, you can't use people that way, that's wrong.

:shrug:

[Jcrowley]

8. Yep

excellent and overlooked point.

K&R

[bigtree]

9. if they don't devise a plan then Bush has NO direction from them

It makes no sense to claim, as some do, that the original authorization gave Bush all of the authority to do as he has, and then assert that it can just remain while they cut off the money.

Cutting off one supplemental request won't direct Bush to do anything. If you accept Kucinich's claim that there's money already in the pipeline to take care of the troops in a withdrawal, then you have to accept that Bush also has access to the money to continue his occupation, claiming that he's still pursuing the original false mandate he thinks is in th original resolution. Fiddling with the funding alone risks that Bush will continue anyway and stretch the resources and our troops even further as he has disregarded every other indirect admonition so far.

If Congress wants Bush to do something they now need to pass a binding resolution telling him so. Otherwise they can't claim they directed him to do anything as they squeeze the funding which really doesn't get to the troops now.

[mike_c]

11. I agree-- congress must revoke the IWR and refuse to appropriate funds....

Kucinich has argued that the courts will likely find that continued appropriation is tacit approval of the war, so both revoking authority and appropriations is necessary. But that is NOT a withdrawal plan-- it's just an exercise of congressional authority to revoke war authority and funding. Getting the troops out is the Pentagon's responsibility. Congress does not legislate troop movements-- it simply says whether or not they must move.

The point is that congress should not withhold action pending some plan for withdrawal. Congress should not agree to own this disaster. It should simply tell the executive to withdraw. End of story.

[bigtree]

13. You just know though that he's going to play out every lever of his assumed authority

in the face of every maneuver.

Bottom line, he has to be further weakened and taken out politically before we can bend him. Legislative approaches still leave him in power to manipulate whatever he can get his hands on.