McGovern on Our Upcoming Attack on Iran
I’ve been reading Glenn Greenwald’s A Tragic Legacy. It occasionally feels over the top, but when I take the time to go through the case Greenwald lays out (on the specific nature of Bush’s decision-making, how it was manipulated to make the Iraq war happen, and how it’s being manipulated now to make a military attack on Iran happen), it’s hard for me find any flaws in his reasoning. That makes stuff like this piece from Ray McGovern especially worrisome to me: George W. Bush: A CIA Analysis.
Among other things, it mentions speculation that the reason Rove has left the White House (and perhaps the reason Tony Snow is also leaving), is that neither one wants to stay and deal with the aftermath of the upcoming missile and bombing attacks by the US on Iranian training camps and nuclear facilities.
The more I think about it, the more I think this isn’t just paranoia on my (and the other Bush-haters’) part. I think it’s a rational reading of the evidence before us.
Let me be more specific: I believe it now is more likely than not that Cheney has won the internal White House debate over whether or not we should bomb Iran, and Bush has decided to go forward with such bombing, probably within the next six months. I also believe that doing so will be disastrous, for many of the same reasons that invading Iraq has proven to be disastrous.
So, there are a couple of tests before us: 1) Am I actually being rational in drawing this conclusion at this point? Are we at essentially the same point in the Iran-attack timeline that we were in the late summer of 2002 with respect to the Iraq invasion? And 2) Will the people in a position to oppose this horrible idea be any more effective this time around than they were in the run-up to the Iraq invasion? Will media outlets conspire to pass on the administration’s pro-war propaganda and manipulated intelligence? Will wiser heads in the foreign policy community be more vocal in their opposition, and will that opposition have any effect? Will the Democratic-controlled Congress be willing or able to restrain a president bent on launching an ill-considered war?
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Do they need congressional approval to launch such an attack against Iran? (Although I’m sure if there is a way around it, they probably already figured it out. It seems like this admin is a master at finding loopholes, technicalities, etc.)
I think the paranoia is valid. Afterall, they pretty much have nothing left to lose. So if they want to do this, I think that they can/will.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
NL,
Under our constitution, the president is the Commander in chief, he can send troops into battle anywhere, any time he wants as long as it is not on US soil, he has to have the approval of the Governor of that state for that, that is spelled out in the Militia Act of 1793? 2? Congress cannot override him. They can not fund the operation or they could remove him from office but that is about all they can do. There was quite a heated debate during the founding of our country as to whether the president should have those powers. One of the founders wrote a great article back then explaining the reasoning behind giving him those extraordinary powers, I think it may have Franklin, so it wasn’t in the Federalist papers, but I know I have it in my collection, I’ll see if I can find it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Thanks, shcb.
Just so I am clear, is that the “rwnj” view of the situation, or is that a genuine take on the powers of the President?
The reason I ask is because it seems to come up a lot these days that “so-and-so members of congress authorized the President to invade Iraq.” It gives an outsider the impression that he can’t invade countries without congressional approval.
Thanks for helping understand how this stuff operates in your country.
PS – We just lost 3 more soldiers this week in Afghanistan. :(
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
NL,
That is for real, I’m not sugar coating it one way or the other it would be the same if the President were a rethuglican or a dumbacrat. That said, I’m not a constitutional scholar, and our constitution is purposely written a little vague. Being meant as a guideline of some permanence with statute laws easily changed with the times. These laws have to be within the guidelines of the constitution.
The reason to give the president these powers is that the founders realized that in many cases, a small war fought quickly could stave off a much more costly war later, and they didn’t want congress to debate the merits until that window of opportunity had passed. The confusing part is that the constitution also gives congress the right to declare war, something we haven’t done since WWII. It is my understanding that even if congress declares war, it is still up to the president how to prosecute that war, so it is conceivable that congress could declare war and the president not send troops. As I said above about all congress can do is not fund a war, that is the check and balance. The president can’t fight a war without money and congress can’t send troops into battle.
So when someone says a member of congress “authorized” the president, they probably mean they authorized funding. Of course Congress can author resolutions and such but they would just be symbolic. Remember also we really are only talking about the supplemental monies, the armed forces have a normal peacetime budget that is always going to be passed, unless something really abnormal happens. So it would be conceivable a president could run a small war or operation within the normal operating budget. [Say we get to the point where we only have 10,000 men in Iraq, and congress voted to “stop the war”, the president could take troops allocated to other bases around the world and put them in Iraq indefinitely and congress couldn’t do anything about it other than pressure the president by threatening to de-fund something the president cares about, or not pass a law he wants passed, hold up appointments, that sort of thing.] I may be all wet on the part in brackets.
The rest of you guys, if I have said anything inaccurate please correct me, these discussions revolve around an understanding of these things and I don’t want to give my friends from Canada the wrong foundation to base their opinions.
Sorry to hear of the losses, I guess we lost 12 in a copter crash in Iraq, war sucks.
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I seem to remember a passage in the Constitution along the lines of:
If the President can make war whenever he wants, what was the point of Congress authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002? That had nothing to do with funding.
Gah, don’t mean to enter into a debate, but this is really just a reality check. Congress authorizes military action, the President executes it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
I think Matt may be right here, I kind of scanned through Federalist 69 and it looks like that is what it is saying, I’ll look into it more. I know congress has the power to declare war, but does that preclude the President from ordering troops into battle without approval? If it does, has congress ever or very often denied the president? Can congress call back the troops once the autorization has taken place? I’ll look into it.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
well, this isn’t as straight forward as I or Matt thought, it looks like this has been a topic since the country was formed, maybe before that. This may take a couple days.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:08 am
Thanks guys. I was just curious more than anything. Your founding fathers were definitely remarkable men.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Using the google machine:
http://ca.encarta.msn.com/guide_whocandeclarewar/Who_Can_Declare_War_Backgrounder_and_Research_Guide.html
Who declared past wars?
Korean War–military struggle fought on the Korean Peninsula in the early 1950s. The United States never formally declared war against North Korea because it considered the conflict a police action rather than a war in the legal sense.
Vietnam War–armed conflict fought in Vietnam from 1959 to 1975. U.S. involvement in the war intensified dramatically after Congress ceded war-making powers to President Lyndon Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution*–resolution passed by Congress on August 7, 1964, which gave President Johnson virtually unchecked authority to wage war in Vietnam. The resolution provided the basis for much of the United States military involvement in the Vietnam War.
Persian Gulf War–armed conflict that began in August 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The subsequent fighting in early 1991 between Iraq and an international coalition of forces led by the United States ended the Iraqi occupation, but did not topple its authoritarian leader, Saddam Hussein.
U.S. law & declarations of war
____________________________________________
President of the United States–although he is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, the president has no clear constitutional authority to declare war.
Congress of the United States–the sole branch of government with the constitutional authority to formally declare war.
War Powers Resolution*–text of the 1973 congressional resolution that attempted to restrict the president’s ability to order military deployments by calling for the president to consult with Congress before sending troops into hostilities, to make periodic reports on the status of hostilities, and to end unauthorized hostilities after 60 days.
August 24th, 2007 at 10:16 am
K, I feel better now.
August 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Nice to see such civilized discussion, and then there was Sven. thx Sven. Does the “war against terra” fit into that the same way, or is it more simple?
I’m just wondering if I can expect the same results as previous American “war on things (that are not countries)” such as the resounding successes of the American “war on drugs” and the “war on poverty” that preceded it (or followed it?). (hmmm, wonder if I missed a former “war on” something else too, was there a “war on liberals”?)
August 26th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Here is a summary of what I’ve found in regard to the authorization of war.
1) This is an argument that has been going on since before the nation was formed
2) Congress has always thought they have the exclusive power of war making because of the “power to declare war” section of the constitution.
3) Most presidents have asserted they have nearly unlimited powers because of the “commander in chief” clause.
4) Federalist 69 is generally cited as the document giving the founders view, I think it is fairly clear from 69 the founders intended congress to authorize war and the President to execute it, as Matt says above.
5) In practice it seems presidents have asked congressional approval when they felt they had time and when they felt they would get approval, and have acted unilaterally when they didn’t. They usually went back to congress later and got retroactive approval if time was an issue.
6) As far as I can see Sven is spot on
7) I have found nothing constitutionally that says congress can end a war it has authorized other than defunding that war.
8) From:
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/critique/fall2001docs/djohnson.htm
Section 2 of the War Powers Resolution of ‘73 says “(b) qualifies the –role of the president as Commander-in-Chief, as it specifies that the commitment of troops must be pursuant to “1) a declaration of war, 2) specific statutory authority, or 3) a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States…” (Public Law 93-148, 372).
Editors note; I was curious why this author dot dot dotted number three, was there a bunch more there, was it insignificant? So I found the actual text of the resolution, the remainder is “…its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
9) It looks to me a huge loophole was created with number three, “or its armed forces”. It would seem Bush 43 has followed the rules both traditional and contemporary. I say contemporary because if past presidents are right and the constitution gives them unlimited power, a congressional resolution can’t over ride that. So Bush has done it right, if congress can’t stop what it starts once it gives it’s authorization, and it authorized the president to do what was required as he sees fit in that 2002 resolution, then all the president would have to do to justify an attack on Iran under the WPR ‘73 is show an attack on our armed forces from Iran. Would providing IED’s be enough?
I think the only solution to clearing this up would be a constitutional amendment. And since it took over 4 years to get the WPR ’73 to a watered down state to be veto proof I think it highly unlikely we will get the extraordinary number of votes required for an amendment.
This has been fun, I have learned a lot, thanks NL
August 29th, 2007 at 9:51 am
To answer your questions, jbc, I think you’re right to be worried. While more people will oppose this one, the skids are greased with the Iraq AUMF and the Congressional failure earlier this year (abetted by plenty of Dems, sad to say) to put up Rep. DeFazio’s firewall between that and a supposedly “followon” Iran war, such as might be justified with the IED/EFP charges.
Once the bombs are dropping or the bullets are flying, it will almost certainly be too late for Congress to meaningfully say “whoa, there” — for one thing, Iran will take it to the US by its Shia proxies in Iraq. That’s why I put my hope mainly in the US military at this point; I hope they can see this as a (second, even more dangerous) clusterf**k in the making.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:02 am
PS: When I say “might be justified”, I mean in the narrow sense of how war supporters would justify an attack on Iran.