Congress Plays Commander in Chief
12 March 2007 11:45 am by Taylor Marsh
Congress Plays Commander in Chief bumped
Congress, you have a problem. The blowback has begun. The lack of will in Congress
is finally being felt beyond the beltway. People are catching on. With newspapers
beginning to lay it out in editorial pages, the Democrats have finally gotten
their point across. Congressional Democrats don\’t have the votes, so they won\’t be using their constitutional powers to defund the escalation-turned-build-up in Iraq. They have instead decided to make up their own role out of whole cloth.
Congress has no authority to designate what troops will be redeployed, as I see it. I wondered
when the argument would turn in this direction. What Democrats in Congress have decided to do to get around this annoying constitutional reality, is craft a whole new role for themselves so they can skirt the
one they don\’t want. They\’re going to put forth redeployment plans to tell
the commander in chief how he can use the U.S. military. It\’s a non-starter. Not only will Mr. Bush rebuff it but he should. No president should allow the Congress to tell him how to use the military in this manner. The Constitution lays out other roles for Congress. It\’s not Bush\’s fault the Democrats won\’t use them, and you have no idea how it pains me to say this. But this is war and Democrats in Congress need to quit playing around and wake up and smell the constitutional reality. Or maybe they have, are doing what they can with the votes they\’ve got and realize they\’re simply setting up the argument for 2008.
Meanwhile, our Armed Forces are taking a fatal hit, which will come back to haunt us all. We\’re in one hell of a mess, people. When will people remember history and that it\’s much easier waging war than stopping one? Frustration abounds.
No one has been more supportive of Speaker Nancy Pelosi than myself. She does
not deserve this \”gen. Pelosi\” slam. She tried to put Murtha into
a major leadership position and failed to get the needed support. She\’s got
Blue Dogs in her caucus who would rather send wounded soldiers back to battle
than exercise their constitutional role and do the people\’s will. So this one
is tough. But it is also black and white. You either have the courage of your
convictions and constitutional powers or you don\’t. The Democrats are in the
majority in the House by decent numbers, but they cannot get enough to back
a really strong bill, so instead, they\’re going to tell Mr. Bush how to use
the troops. Redeployment plans in legislation may make Democrats feel like they\’re
doing something, but it is ludicrous.
It\’s also likely unconstitutional.
It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval.
It\’s quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks
and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower
had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy
landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to
conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional
meddling in military strategy.This is not to say that Congress has no constitutional leverage — only
that it should exercise it responsibly. In a sense, both Bush and the more
ardent opponents of the war are right. If a majority in Congress truly believes
that the war is not in the national interest, then lawmakers should have the
courage of their convictions and vote to stop funding U.S. involvement. They
could cut the final checks in six months or so to give Bush time to manage
the withdrawal. Or lawmakers could, as some Senate Democrats are proposing,
revoke the authority that Congress gave Bush in 2002 to use force against
Iraq.Do
we really need a Gen. Pelosi?
Congress can cut funding for Iraq, but it shouldn\’t micromanage the war.
At this point, since cutting the funding for escalation is not what Democrats in Congress want to do, I\’m for revoking the authority that Congress gave Mr. Bush in
2002, which Democrats should have fought in the beginning. Pull the use of force
in Iraq. Are there the numbers? No. Will Harry Reid allow it to come to a vote.
You know the answer to that if you\’ve been paying attention. So what\’s next?
Redeployment plans from everyone from left to right. It\’s a ploy, because Congress has to be seen doing something.
The push and legislation being offered on redeployment, as well as the debate on the subject, is serving a useful purpose. We know the Administration is using it to push the Iraqis. We also know that we are moving Congress to act. Unfortunately, their action is nothing less than a bad punt.
I know everyone is hopped up about the House and Senate bills, thinking they\’re
the best we can get blah-blah-blah. Unfortunately, Congress likely doesn\’t
have the constitutional authority to start sending down decrees to the commander
in chief on when and how many troops need to be deployed in Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter). Bush knows
this all too well.
Congress can pull the funding for the escalation turned build up.
Congress can also rescind the catastrophic 2002 use of force on Iraq they gave
Mr. Bush.
However, as much as the Democrats and Republicans want to ignore it. As much
as Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid want to look the other way while
they fashion redeployment legislation. I don\’t see anything in the constitution that allows
Congress to play commander in chief.
