If a Nation Is Forced by One Man to Fight a War that Nobody Else Wants…

Time for change

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-29-07 11:54 PM
Original message

If a Nation Is Forced by One Man to Fight a War that Nobody Else Wants…

… Can that nation be considered a democracy?

That is the question posed on the front cover of the most recent issue of The Nation. Not the front page, the front cover. Here is the full text of the front cover of the February 5th issue of The Nation (with the complete article inside):

World opinion is against the US escalation in Iraq. The American people are against it. The Iraqi people are against it. The Iraqi government is against it. Can a single man force a nation to fight a war it does not want to fight, expand a war it does not want to expand? If he can, is that nation any longer a democracy in any meaningful sense? If not, how can democratic rule and the republican form of government be restored?

I believe that that is the central issue before our country today (the question of impeaching and removing Bush and Cheney from office is part of the same issue). Many of our Congresspersons have said, or act as if, the decision to make or expand a war is out of their hands. But the American people should not accept that evasion of Congressional responsibility.

War is Congress’s responsibility

In the first place, our Constitution clearly gives Congress, not the President, the authority to wage war.

Secondly, having been severely burned by Richard Nixon’s continued bombing of Cambodia, in 1973 Congress passed, and overrode a Presidential veto, to enact the War Powers Act, which reasserted Congress’s Constitutional authority to declare war. The purpose of the War Powers Act was specified as:

to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

To accomplish this, the law required that the President make periodic reports to Congress on the progress of hostile military activities, and within 60 days of these reports (or whenever they are due) “the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces … unless the Congress”:

1) Has declared war or has specifically authorized the use of U.S. Armed Forces OR
2) Has extended the 60 day period OR
3) Is physically unable to meet.

The law then authorizes the President “not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing” that the safety of the troops requires that extra time.

And lest there be any misunderstanding as to Congress’s power to end hostilities, irrespective of Presidential desires, the law specifies:

At any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Thus, our Constitution, alone or in combination with the War Powers Act, clearly gives Congress the authority – not to mention the responsibility – to terminate our war in Iraq, even without cutting off funds for it.

But what about the Iraq War Resolution, which some claim gives George Bush the authority to continue this war indefinitely?

On the ridiculously absurd claim that the Iraq War Resolution gives George Bush the authority to indefinitely continue his Iraq war

So let’s take a look at the Iraq War Resolution, which authorizes the President to:

… use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

And the IWR then goes on to state that in order to exercise that authority, the President must:

… make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that… reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Ok, let’s be serious about this. Congress authorized George Bush to use our military to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq”. The “continuing threat” in question was the so-called “weapons of mass destruction” that Iraq allegedly had. In the first place, the “weapons of mass destruction” that were allegedly possessed by Iraq were a lie. Secondly, even if Iraq had possessed those weapons they would not have posed a threat to our country. Thirdly, even if those weapons ever were there, they’re not there any more. Fourthly, the regime that allegedly possessed those weapons is gone. And fifthly …. Oh, what the hell, that’s plenty enough. Bush lied about the threat, the threat never existed, and the threat that never existed is gone. How on earth can that be spun into an argument that claims that the Iraq War Resolution still applies???

A brief look at relevant 20th Century history

Ok, now I’m going to say something that I don’t exactly want to say, since it could be taken as a defense of George Bush (which it is definitely NOT), but I’ll say it anyway because I believe it needs to be said, and we need to recognize it so that we can do something about it: The Presidential usurpation of Congress’s authority to declare war did not begin with George Bush and Dick Cheney.

It is probably most correct to say that it began with Harry Truman when he sent troops to fight in the Korean War – which he should not have done without seeking and obtaining Congressional authority. Nor should Dwight Eisenhower have acquiesced in the CIA plan to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran (And if you don’t think that was an act of war, consider what the reaction here would be if Iran overthrew our government). Nor should have John F. Kennedy invaded Cuba. Nor should have Lyndon Johnson gotten us into an undeclared war against Vietnam. Nor should have Richard Nixon secretly expanded that war to Cambodia. Nor should have Ronald Reagan lied to the American people about the Contra War in Nicaragua and continued to fund it after Congress expressly forbid him to do so.

My point is that once the precedent was set, it became easier and easier for Presidents to continue it, bypassing Congress in their haste to involve our country in various military adventures, notwithstanding the fact that they lacked the legal Constitutional authority to do so. Thus, in the interest of international peace and harmony, maintaining democratic government in our country, and avoiding a world wide catastrophe, our country needs to think long and hard about that and get itself back on track before it’s too late.

Not that I consider each of the above noted Presidential actions to be equally irresponsible and harmful. Not by a long shot. I have a good deal of respect for Truman and Kennedy, and Johnson too in some respects. The scope of George Bush’s illegal actions in Iraq far surpass most of the others, both in the degree of deception with which they were initiated and in the long term catastrophe that they have caused – though Nixon’s and Reagan’s actions run a not too distant second and third.

Some final thoughts

I go back to the opening quote of this post: If a nation is forced by one man to fight a war that nobody else wants, can that nation be considered a democracy? I don’t know if it’s fair to say that such a situation defines tyranny. But I will say that when a nation finds itself in that position, tyranny probably can’t be very far behind.

It should be patently obvious at this point that George Bush will continue the war in Iraq, not to mention expand it to Iran, until he is forced to do otherwise. Last November the American people voted out of office an intensely unpopular Congress. Their main motivation for doing that was to end the Iraq War.

Thus, we now have a Congress that has a popular mandate, the legal authority, and the moral responsibility to end that war, through any and all means at its disposal: It can cut off funding for the war; it can reassert its Constitutional authority; it can reassert the powers that it gave itself with the War Powers Act of 1973; it can proclaim the obvious fact that the Iraq War Resolution does NOT give George Bush the authority to continue an illegal war that was begun under false pretenses; and, it can do all of those things together. But the best option of all would be to impeach and remove from office George Bush and Dick Cheney – not just for the treasonous act of committing their country to war under totally false pretenses, but for a myriad of other reasons as well.