The Founders Feared an Imperial President

Yeah, I'm kind of lazy and in a bad mood today so...I'm not much in a thinking mood. So the whole post will be a roundup of interesting stuff from the past couple days.

Presidential Power
Just what the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War -

Adam Cohen does fine work in this piece.

The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn't have the power to do it. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," he said at a recent press conference. "I think they ought to be funding the troops." He added magnanimously: "I'm certainly interested in their opinion."

The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress's side.

What Bush wants and expects is a rubberstamp from Congress. As if he has ALL the power: To declare war, wage war, determine when to exit, and Congress simply provides funding. Oh no, not only does it provide funding, but it cannot use the powers of the purse as leverage to enforce its will or coerce the president to change policy.

Reality check Mr. President: Congress has the power to declare war, to ratify peace, to maintain, fund, and regulate, the armed forces of the US, and the Founders gave the Congress its funding powers precisely because it wanted to give the Legislature that leverage in order to check the power of the president (and the courts).

Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution's framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called "the foetus of monarchy."

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe's history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings.

I liked this snippet

The Constitution does make the president "commander in chief," a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be "nothing more" than "first general and admiral," responsible for "command and direction" of military forces.

The founders would have been astonished by President Bush's assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly.

Mr. Cohen makes a great point on what the term "Commander-in-Chief" means, and how it is abused by this President in order to give him much more expansive powers than is rightfully his under the Consitutution. The man thinks he can strike Iran and Congress can in no way legislate or impede his ability to do so because it conflicts with his powers of commander in chief. But as Cohen notes: Commander-in-Chiefs is the highest officer and can execute wars already declared. But the Commander-in-Chief and thus the President does NOT have the authority to unilaterally and without the assent of Congress initiate war. Nor can he officially ratify Peace after a Conflict.

Those powers go to Congress. It is they who have legitimate right to dictate and determine when we go in and also they have a role to play in determining when we leave. And the power of the purse is but one of the consitutional arms given to Congress in order to enforce its prerogative on the President. COngress role is not simply to ruberstamp funding requests.

Give it a good read, its not that long.
------
Roundup

It seems our diplomacy around the world has been suffering due to the overriding attentions that Iraq garners from our leaders.

At a time in which it is essential for the US to be mending fences and engaging in some global diplomacy, it is instead doing all it can to snub the entire world. And, as we ignore and snub nations in SE Asia, in Africa, and in Latin America, we also will see more an more nations turning away from the US. China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela meanwhile do not hesitate to try their hand at diplomacy and "soft-power" and are making may inroads in all those regions.

Its not a zero-sum game so not all gains my these nations means it is to the detriment of the US, but its negligence of these regions is certainly reducing its influence in those regions and providing great opportunities for China and others to fill the gaps. We ignore the world at our own peril...
---------

Bush's incompetence gives Al-Qaeda new life- (Salon) ....Yeah, tell me about it

-----
Did we say September? I meant "NextSummer" *cough*

Unless Congress acts now or in September, it will come and go and the President will just keep moving that goal post back....and back some more. "Did we say September"? Who didn't see this coming?

A revised U.S. military plan envisions establishing security at the local level in Baghdad and elsewhere by next summer, it likely would take another year to get Iraqi forces ready to enforce any newfound stability, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

Known as the Joint Campaign Plan, developed in tandem by Gen. David Petraeus and his political counterpart in Baghdad, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, it reflects a timetable starkly at odds with the push by many in Congress to wind down U.S. involvement in a matter of months.

--------

Iraq Insurgent Groups Unite - Against Al-Qaeda and the US -

Seven of the most important Sunni-led insurgent organisations fighting the US occupation in Iraq have agreed to form a public political alliance with the aim of preparing for negotiations in advance of an American withdrawal, their leaders have told the Guardian.

In their first interview with the western media since the US-British invasion of 2003, leaders of three of the insurgent groups - responsible for thousands of attacks against US and Iraqi armed forces and police - made clear that they would continue their armed resistance until all foreign troops were withdrawn from Iraq, and denounced al-Qaida for sectarian killings and suicide bombings against civilians. (snip)

Leaders of the three groups - who did not use their real names in the interview - said the new front, which brings together all the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba'athists, has agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from all foreign troops, rejection of any cooperation with parties involved in the political institutions set up under the occupation, and a declaration that all decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.

The aim of the alliance - which includes a range of Islamist and nationalist-leaning groups and is currently called the Political Office for the Iraqi Resistance - is to link up with other anti-occupation groups in Iraq to negotiate with the Americans in anticipation of an early US withdrawal. The programme envisages a temporary technocratic government to run the country during a transition period until free elections can be held.

Like I said, even most Sunni insurgents have no love for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Once we leave they will not take over the country. They want the US out...that's their friction with the US...its very presence in Iraq. It certaintly is a positive sign that they plan to hold talks with the US, but I seriously doubt that the transition from US occupation to free-Iraq will go that smooth. Although they claim to not be against working with Shia groups, they say they will not deal with Shia militias and groups because of their affiliation with this Iraqi government who they see as a puppet and embodyment of the US occupation.

In essence: Which Shia will they be OK dealing with? Who is left?

I don't know. At this point I still see a lot of chaos and civil war raging when the US leave...nothing so far tells me otherwise but you never know what kind of accomodation can be reached between now and our withdrawal.

----

And speaking of pulling our troops out...
Democrats vow to continue pressing ahead for US withdrawal from Iraq -

Good luck, and I mean that. It's going to be a bitch fighting Republican obstuction in the Senate in the form of the Filibuster.

They are, after all, on track to be the highest-filibustering most-obstructionist party in US history.

That's the Republican Party for ya!

Plus they have the gal to criticize Democrats for not being able to get things done!

It's like someone breaking you leg and then critcizing you for not being able to walk correctly.

What Happens When We Leave Iraq?

Now that the war is turning into a political liability for Republicans and conservatives, a new justification for our continued presence has popped up:

We cannot leave Iraq or else Iraq will be controlled by Al Qaeda in Iraq and remain a safe-haven for terrorism. They will follow us home etc... etc...

This view of likely post-withdrawal scenarios is - in my view - informed by sheer ignorance about how the various sectarian actors in Iraq will react to the withdrawal of US troops and by a general ignorance of foreign policy and terrorism.

Not only is al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) a relatively small group in Iraq, it also responsible for a very small percentage of total attacks in Iraq. The bulk of the violence is due to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shia militias.

Let me fill you guys in on something. Apologies because I know I've said this before:

Nobody in Iraq likes Al-Qaeda

-Sunni Insurgents: Hate these foreign fighters (despite both of them being Sunni), distrust their motives. Many of the Sunni insurgent groups are ex-Baathists and Saddam loyalists. Islamic jihadists and Baathists hated each other in the pre-invasion era.

This fact explains why many of us doubters were simply baffled that Bush would claim that Saddam was harboring Islamic terrorists in his country. They were just as eager to kill Saddam as they were to kill Americans!!

Yet, up until now (in the post-invasion era) there has been toleration and cooperation between the Sunni insurgents and AQI. Why?

Because they have made a marriage of convenience to deal with the perceived 'greater evil' of the US occupation. But, make no mistake, there is no love lost between these two groups

As I noted in a June blog post (citing CNN):

U.S. forces have begun arming nationalist guerrillas and former Saddam Hussein loyalists -- and coordinating tactics -- in a marriage of convenience against al Qaeda radicals in one of Iraq's most violent provinces, senior U.S. commanders tell CNN.

This new alliance, a result of the deepening divisions among Iraqi insurgent factions, was on display earlier this week at a highway intersection in the town of Tahrir. There, a group of some 15 insurgents publicly chanted: "Death to al Qaeda."

"The al Qaeda organization has dominated and humiliated Sunnis, Shiites and jihadis. It has forced people from their homes. They can't get enough blood. They killed many honest scholars, preachers and loyal mujahedeen," one of the group's spokesmen read from a written manifesto.

It's a sharp turnaround from just two months ago when the same insurgent forces were focused on fighting U.S. troops and driving them out of Diyala province, about 40 miles north of Baghdad.

No love lost there, yet they cooperated for reasons of opposing the US...except, some insurgent groups are now working WITH the US against AQI for the very same reasons. Some of these groups get arms and support, and they will use it against AQI (and inevitably, I believe, against Shias).

But the same article gives us reason for caution in this ugly alliance:

But while the marriage of convenience may be successful for now, Abu Ali and his followers seem to have no intention of making a lasting commitment to the Americans.

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

In other words - once they weaken al-Qaeda they will attack our troops again until we withdraw from Iraq.

Here's the funny thing: This 'enemy of my enemy' relationship that is still significant between Sunni insurgent groups and AQI is only made possible because of US troop presence in Iraq. If the US where to withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Sunni insurgent groups would quickly eliminate the Al Qaeda elements in Iraq.

----
What about the Shia?

The Shia loath AQI. Unlike the Sunni insurgent groups, the Shia militias have no significant reason to even cooperate with AQI. AQI is a Sunni jihadist extremist group who loves to kill Shias as apostates and untrue Muslims.

There will be no tolerance - and indeed there is none now - for AQI among the Shia groups in Iraq.

The Kurds?

The Kurds similarly have no need or love for AQI. They have a slightly-more-stable enclave in the north of Iraq and have no need for the chaos that AQI is known to bring. They will find no shelter and no love among the Kurds.

Conclusions

Lets be clear, there will be no good options in Iraq. There will be no magical solution, no course of action, which will lead to anything but some levels of significant violence even civil war in Iraq. That outcome is unavoidable whether we stay in Iraq or leave; And indeed, such outcomes are the inevitable product of our own initial mistake of invading Iraq, and subsequent mistakes in managing the occupation. We are stuck in a scenario with very few options and none of them good; some just less bad.

If we withdraw from Iraq - and I think we should - there will be violence in Iraq but that is unavoidable. But the United States can take a bad outcome for the US and make it less bad by withdrawing.

As long as the US remains in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Iraq will retain a safe-haven, a training ground, and a recruitment tool from Iraq. Every day that we remain in Iraq is a day that we allow al-Qaeda a base, a day we boost its recruiting, a day that we do precisely what it wants us to do.

In addition withdrawal will benefit the US by freeing up our military and giving it time to recover, by relieving some of the heavy strain on the budget from the billions we spend per month on the war, and freeing up the US to concentrate on international jihadist terrorism aimed at us. The Iraq War has been a heavy chain around our neck and a source of anger and resentment from the international community...only when we finally leave can we ever hope to begin repairing our standing and relationships with the globe. That, I fear, will take years or decades...

------

So what does the Pentagon itself believe will happen in case of a US withdrawal?

The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing the results of a recent Pentagon "war-gaming" of just such an outcome. It's important to note that they did not find that Al-Qaeda would control Iraq.

Here's what they did find:

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

The ugliness really is unavoidable at this point.

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

For Bush, however, that is the primary risk of withdrawal. "It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda," he said in a news conference last week. "It would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we'd allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan."

This lack of concern for al-Qaeda creating some permanent sanctuary likely stems from the knowledge that they are a relatively small groups in Iraq, and that they are not likely to survive long after the Americans leave.

The United States needs to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. From a range of options that are all bad, it is the lesser evil and one that will harm the United States the least.

We must bring the troops home

------------

Roundup

Iraq

Turkey Threatens Iraq Incursion - Yet another complication for the US mission in Iraq. I've followed the rising tensions between Iraq and Turkey due to Kurdish rebel groups attacking Turkey and taking refuge in Northern Iraq.

Turkey has warned that it could send troops into northern Iraq after today's general elections if talks with Iraqi and US officials fail to produce effective measures against Kurdish rebels based there.

I'll update if anything happens...although if it did I'm sure it would be plastered on the TV all day.

Analysis: GOP Senators nervous about the war (Associated Press) - I'd be nervous too if I were them. It's a good read but there are several parts of this article that deserve special comment

Asked whether they believe that the war was mismanaged Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) replied:

"The strategy we had before was not the right strategy," he told reporters at midweek. "We should have had a counterinsurgency strategy."

By his remarks, Bond made it clear he meant the strategy was wrong from the time Saddam Hussein was deposed until this past January, when Gen. David Petraeus was installed as top military commander. That's a span of nearly four years.

Asked who bore responsibility for the error, Bond said, "Ultimately, obviously, the president."

Should any blame fall on Congress — under Republican control the entire time?

"Congress was not running the war," Bond replied.

He's right in that the war was indeed mismanaged and that the US should have focused more on counterinsurgency tactics from the get-go. [As an aside, I'll add that counterinsurgency tactics would not have assured success, and at this point it is too late and too chaotic for those tactics to change the situation]

What riles me up is that they seek to place all blame with the President for not changing tactics but the Republican Congress had 4 years to pressure for change...so why didn't it?

Quite simple: They didn't think they had the wrong strategy. Or, they were too cowardly or afraid to criticize the war strategy. In fact, they went out of their way to attack Democrats and others who argued that this war was being mismanaged. It's insulting for these Republicans to now try and skirt away from some of the blame for the disaster.

Here's another thing that got my interest:

"Today's mission is focused on al-Qaida," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., reflecting what other administration allies in Congress say privately.

In this view, the main U.S. military focus should be on preventing Iraq from falling under terrorist control. One Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the shift in talk of a military objective was a prelude to a change to a strategy that would pull U.S. troops back from a civil war between Sunni and Shiites.

But focusing attention on al-Qaida raises familiar questions: Were terrorists present in Iraq before the 2003 invasion and what would happen if U.S. forces departed?

According to several officials, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and McCain engaged in a brief, impromptu debate touching on that point recently at a private meeting of the rank and file.

Voinovich said the Sunni and Shiites in Iraq would together drive al-Qaida from their country if the U.S. were not there. McCain took the opposite view. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, noting that the meeting was private.

The Republicans are focusing now on keeping al-Qaeda from controlling Iraq. Yet it seems clear that it is our very presence in Iraq which is allowing al-Qaeda to retain Iraq as a base. You see the problem don't you.

-The invasion of Iraq introduced terrorism to Iraq that was not present before
- The presence of al-Qaeda that the Administration made possible is becoming the rationale for our continued presence in Iraq.
- Our continued presence ensures al-Qaeda retains its base in Iraq, thus ensuring our continued presence. Go back to step 2.

It's a goddamed vicious cycle of idiocy that feeds off of its own idiocy to create more idiocy that...well you get the point.

-----

What's is even more frustrating is that Republican Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) seems to understand that Iraqi's will eliminate al-Qaeda after a US withdrawal, and that is good.

But, why, Sen. Voinovich, if you do understand that do you refuse to vote for Senator Harry Reeds binding withdrawal timetable resolution? Why do you proclaim you want a change in Iraq policy yet opt to vote against an amendment which will do just that?

Cowardice

Senator Voinovich and other 'Waverers In Name Only' (WINO's) want the political cover of saying they split with the President and took a stand against the war by supporting bills and amendments by "moderates" in the Senate which would not force the President to change anything. That is cowardice, and that is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers. They want the credit for being anti-war, without doing anything substantive to ensure that the war come to an end.

And they are angry because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed is not giving them the chance to get that political cover: After those WINOs refused to help him beat the Republican Filibuster of his amendment mandating withdrawal (added to a Pentagon bill), he shelved the whole Pentagon bill (along with the other toothless "moderate" amendments) that those moderate Republicans and Democrats hoped would give them political cover.

So...now they get voted no on the Iraq withdrawal, and they are denied their political cover. So, if they really want to reduce the pressure on them from Americans they will just have to play ball with Reed and vote on his amendment next time he brings up the Pentagon bill...or else he'll do it to them again.

Let the cowards flail in the wind.....