Since the President first his new strategy for Iraq unveiled on 10 January, there is no shortage of critics claim that the plan was doomed to fail, even before the Department of Defense began to work on their implementation. Using the cover of article II, section 2 of the Constitution, which vests in the President sole authority as Commander-in-Chief, some senators have claimed that they are powerless to stop the President "escalation" of the war, and that their only recourse to express their dissatisfaction by means of a non-binding resolution.
Before proceeding, I must agree with the idea that the President plan to deploy an additional 21.500 troops into Baghdad and al-Anbar province is somehow a "escalation" of the war. Since the invasion in March 2003, his troops levels have risen and fallen in response to the level of violence in the country. As an army captain in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, I sat by numerous briefings that talked about force levels and where we had to be in response to the situation on the ground.
At the beginning of 2005, such as the rebellion was really starting to hit his stride, American troops in Iraq numbered approximately 130,000. In the end of 2005, in preparation for the elections in december, troops levels increased to nearly 160,000 with the expectation that violence would spike as the democratic process played itself out. During 2006 were the force levels steadily between 120,000 and 140,000. At the moment the number of troops in Iraq is approximately 130,000.
The point of all this is that the President's plan for the deployment of additional troops nothing more than a response to the violence in Baghdad that remain will force levels lower than they have been in the past. It is an attempt to a certain degree of safety, so that the Iraqis can work towards a political solution that will solve problems of the country.
But it's time to move on. The Senate will soon consider different non-binding resolutions that claim to show the will of Congress and the American people that we are not more soldiers to fight and die in Iraq. Senators Biden, Levin and hail have suggested a these Congress convictions, already made by the Commission. Senators Warner, Coleman, Collins and Nelson have proposed a similar measure that very soon will be taken over. The Hill reported that senator Clinton has also its own version that the number of troops of this month level would cap unless president Bush license of Congress for an increase in the attempt.
Since these resolutions are without obligation, no carries the same weight as a law adopted by Congress in an attempt to reduce troops or change the behavior of the war. So what's the point? What are they trying to achieve with this symbolic vote?
It's really quite simple. These senators know that such a resolution will be passed on by the President and will change nothing to his plan for the deployment of more troops. What in the past two weeks has unfolded, is nothing less than political posturing to improve personal power and influence at the expense of an unpopular President. Some of the opposing run Senators make for the White House in 2008. Some will only fight for their political survival. By the introduction of some distance between himself and President Bush, they may have recourse to public dissatisfaction with no substantive action of their own country.
The problem with this approach is that it undermines the President in carrying out its constitutional duties as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. If the President's strategy is to have any chance of success, it needs the support of Congress. Partner if the leaders of Iraq perceive by Mr Bush as his hands and feet tied, they will not undertake with us to set security and move from their country, right to suspect that they cannot in support of the us. Without at least the perception of confidence at home, by Mr Bush strategy will indeed fail.
None of the senators in open against the President's plan would be responsible for what happens in Iraq because of the political consequences. But if they really believe, deep in their hearts that what the President is doing wrong for this country, they have an obligation to the American people to stop wasting their time with a non-binding resolutions that are meaningless and to exercise the power entrusted to them by the Constitution.
Senator Edward Kennedy try is to lead the Congress on this road. He wants to use the power of the purse to demand of the President to additional funding from Congress before he can add more troops. But Congress may go a step further. They could act equal to the rhetoric that they have pushed to the American people. They can put their money where their mouths and cut off from the funds for a war that they claim is unnecessary, reckless and may be illegal. Unless they're willing to do so, they should back off and let the President do its job as Commander-in-Chief.
No comments:
Post a Comment