Greenwald: Who Decides What US Does in Iraq and Iran? Congress or Bush?

[BurtWorm]

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/who-decides-what-us-will-do-about-iraq.html

Friday, August 25, 2006
Who decides what the U.S. will do about Iraq and Iran?

A somewhat overlooked part of President Bush's Press Conference this week was his comments strongly suggesting that he believes only he -- and not the Congress -- has the power to decide when the war in Iraq ends, as well as whether we will begin a new war with Iran. All of the debates we are having about what to do about Iran and Iraq are meaningless if the President believes (as he seems to) that all power to decide these matters rests with him.

As Atrios noted the other day, the administration's intentions regarding a war with Iran are unclear. The most likely reason that it's unclear is because the administration is still undecided about whether to start that war, most likely because the more extremist warmongers in the administration have yet to convince those who need to be convinced of the war's necessity (at least its pre-November necessity). No reasonable person can doubt that political considerations will play a significant role in all of this. Will forcing a mere debate over military action against Iran be enough for Karl Rove to create the warrior-appeaser dichotomy which is all he knows, or will more be required, i.e., an all-out military conflict in order to generate war-based support for the President and his party?

But whatever the administration's plans are, there is, as I have written about before, a very real question as to whether the administration believes it can attack Iran on its own, i.e., without the approval of the American people through the Congress. The theories of executive power embraced by the administration leave little doubt that they believe, at least in theory, that decisions about whether to go to war against Iran, or to end the war in Iraq, are for the President alone to make, and that Congressional authorization is unecessary to attack Iran, and for the same reason, Congress cannot end the war in Iraq.

[patricia92243]

1. This is a joke - right? Bush IS congress or maybe it is Congress IS Bush

They are not called a "rubber-stamp" COngress for nothing.

[BurtWorm]

2. The question pertains to what might happen after the elections

if the Democrats gain back Congress or enough power to force votes on redeployment of troops.

[BurtWorm]

3. "The significance of these views for the Iran situation is obvious."

<Greenwald continues:>


It seems quite clear that the President believes he has the power to begin a war with Iran without Congressional approval, or even in the face of Congressional opposition to such a war. That view is plainly contrary to core principles of our system of government. In Federalist 69, Hamilton sought to assuage fears that creating a President would lead to monarchical rule, and to do so, he contrasted the "inferior" powers of the President with those of the British King, particularly in the area of war-making (last emphasis added):

The most material points of difference are these: -- First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.

Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

How much clearer could that be? The President does not have the power to simply deploy armies at will. He merely commands armies which Congress deploys into battle. Congress decides when and if wars will be fought; the President merely decides as the "first General" how they will be fought.

[tonkatoy57]

4. Congress has the power of the purse...

...and as with any type of relationship, the person controlling the money always has the upper hand. If the congress, with a democratic majority in the House, refuses to fund that narrows the administrations options. Will that happen? Probably not, but that is one solution to overreaching by the executive branch.

[thefuzz811]

5. As long as we have a Republican majority...

in Congress, they will consent to anything BushInc wants. We need to vote those incompetent fools out of office.

[Igel]

6. I find part of what the writer said to be disingenuous.

"The President does not have the power to simply deploy armies at will. He merely commands armies which Congress deploys into battle. Congress decides when and if wars will be fought; the President merely decides as the "first General" how they will be fought."

The prez can't declare war (although there's that annoying bit in some legislation saying the prez can essentially start a conflict, but needs butt-covering approval within so many days, IIRC). He cannot authorize munitions/provisions ('regulate' them) on his own. How we get our armies has changed a bit; the way it was done back then was to merely say part of the militia was now under presidential authority, popularly called 'the draft'. I suppose the way the military recruits now is still under Congressional authorization, even though the process stipulated is rather different. We don't have the same definition for 'militia'.

But the Congress merely authorizes the troops' deployment; the actual deployment is part of 'how'. Congress has no clear authority to stipulate that the 1st Airborne be used; just that it may be used, and 'regulated'.

Since Congress didn't actually declare war on Iraq, it's unclear what formalities should accompany the actual termination of fighting. Of course, by denying funding, authorization to continue to recruit can be denied. But typically rules of order say that a motion that has taken effect cannot be simply reversed. Authorization to undertake military action was given, one presumes, and military action was taken; the authorization cannot be revoked, since it would entail that the action taken has suddenly become unapproved of retroactively. The Congress simply cannot 'undeclare war'. Usually wars end with treaties, something the Congress has little to say about until the executive branch presents one, at least that's what you get from the Constitution. But can Congress formally say that a police action like Iraq must be brought to an end by means other than raising and regulating of troops? The Constitution has a very black-and-white approach to things, however the Congress has decided it far prefers grey. Pity.

I don't think Greenwald justifies his conclusion. He says that a war shouldn't be fought without support; and that a war can't start without Congressional ok; and armies can be raised or regulated except by Congressional approval. But the conclusion of a war ... that's his inference, and I don't know that it's a necessary one, or even a valid one.

[BurtWorm]

7. If Congress cuts off appropriations and votes to end the war

I don't see how the President can continue it.

This may be a rare historical instance in which Congress can and should act to end a war because the 'president' refuses to.

[Igel]

8. That's precisely the way they can do it.

But that's different from revoking authorization. It boils down to $. That's clearly constitutional--the 'regulating' part.

I read Greenwald as trying to say the Congress had the power to revoke authorization. Perhaps it does; the way the Congress grants power to make war these days simply isn't something covered by the Constitution, IMHO.

[BurtWorm]

9. If the war becomes so unpopular that politicans feel endangered

supporting it (which may actually be happening--we'll see), then Congress might be forced to take any action available to bring the war to a rapid conclusion. This may include passing something like an Iraq War Dissolution Resolution, ordering the Executive to justify its actions regularly to Congress or face getting funding cut off. This would only happen with a sufficiently large Democratic majority in both houses, of course, which makes it very unlikely at the moment. But it is available to them.

The point is, Congress is not a by-stander during war. It has a role to play, and it is a check on the powers of the Executive, for the reasons Greenwald, citing proto-Republicans Jay and Hamilton, enumerated.

[ginnyinWI]

10. I wonder about cabinet positions like Sec-Def

Does the Congress have any power to impeach a cabinet member? It seems pretty unanimous that people want him gone. Nobody's defending him, even people like McCain. If the Congress goes Dem, what options would they have available in addition to monetary control? Would oversight include removing an incompetent from office?