From Greeley, Colorado:
"There will be accountability when voters go to the polls in November 2008. Facing re-election, I am not so sure that Congress wouldn't, in the end, override the president's promised veto, just as Congress did in 1973 when passing the War Powers Act to prevent another Vietnam."
_____________________________________________________________
The end game in Iraq
Guest Commentary
May 1, 2007
President Bush has a credibility problem with respect to Iraq. Most of us don't believe that he has a plan that will work -- that America can win a 21st century war against terrorists with conventional 20th century military tactics. The president has not made the case that an orderly withdrawal from Iraq will result in chaos -- only sweeping admonitions. Consequently, the 2006 mid-term elections resulted in the Democrats gaining a slim majority in both Houses of Congress.
But it may not be a veto-proof Congress. Accordingly, Congress is saying to the president, "Give us a credible plan that changes course following the Baker-Hamilton Work Group recommendations." I don't believe for a minute the allegation that Congress wants to micro-manage our military.
Both Houses of Congress have passed emergency appropriations legislation that meets the president's request of $92 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and another round of hurricane recovery but with strings attached. Both bills have timelines for withdrawal of American troops. The president has promised to veto the final bill. He doesn't want strings attached and is unwilling to negotiate a change in course.
The tension built into our Constitution regarding who has the power over war (the commander in chief or Congress) and how that power is wielded, is both the root of the current political impasse and the way out. Here is how I see it.
Congress has the sole authority under Article I of the Constitution to declare war and to appropriate funds for our military. The president commands our military accordingly. Unfortunately, over the years, Congress has not jealously guarded that authority, which is why things are messy.
Case in point:In 2002, Congress gave the president a blank check in the use of force in Iraq. The 2002 Resolution to Use Force in Iraq did not specifically invoke the 1973 War Powers Act as it should. This law establishes an orderly process for Congress, in consultation with the president, to control the "scope and duration" of committing American troops to foreign hostilities. Under this statute, there is a consultative process where the president and his generals plan for war and report on progress according to Congress's war policy. In this instance, the president would plan for, execute and report on a strategy resulting in an orderly withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.
Congress should invoke the War Powers Act and direct the president to submit to Congress in 60 days a plan and timetable for withdrawal of our combat troops to a strong defensive posture in the region. Failure to submit a withdrawal plan in 60 days would automatically trigger withdrawal of U.S. troops, according to a schedule contained in the companion emergency appropriations bill.
The plan would take into account the turning over of facilities and equipment to the Iraqi government, the expulsion of more than 40,000 armed civilian American "security contractors," relocating Iraqis who worked for us and therefore may be subject to retribution if left behind, logistical requirements, resources needed and any other requirements for an orderly withdrawal the president deems appropriate.
The final companion emergency appropriations bill should cut off funding for "offensive military action" and set an outside date for initiating withdrawal activities -- after the president's plan is submitted to Congress. Let the president's generals in the field decide what "offensive" means. I can give them that. Have an up or down vote on both bills, and forward them, if passed, to the president for signature or veto.
There will be accountability when voters go to the polls in November 2008. Facing re-election, I am not so sure that Congress wouldn't, in the end, override the president's promised veto, just as Congress did in 1973 when passing the War Powers Act to prevent another Vietnam.
Eric Eidsness was a candidate for the Fourth Congressional District in 2006 and is a presumptive contender for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 General Election.
greeleytrib.com |
