Hiding
in the Center:
The Senate’s
too passive to cut off surge funding. Democrats aren’t weak
in numbers – just courage.
The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing in February
on whether certain civilian officials in the Pentagon manipulated
intelligence to support the Administration’s decision to
go to war against Iraq four years ago. At the end of the hearing,
the committee’s new chairman, Senator Carl Levin, wagged
his finger at the Pentagon’s Inspector General, calling
the report the most "devastating" he’d seen in
his Senate career. Levin, it seemed, hadn’t been quite steamed
about anything in a while – including the President’s
recent unveiling of the troop “surge.”
The most obvious reaction to the hearing is to wonder just how
many "reports" on that subject the Senate needs? Or,
as conservative columnist David Brooks has pointed out –
in light of what is (or isn’t, rather) going on in the Senate
– why aren’t they discussing the most significant
change in military strategy since the invasion of Iraq instead
of pre-war intelligence, which, at least for the moment, is better
left to historians?
This digression into irrelevancy is characteristic of the continuing
impotency of our Congress – yes, the present Democratic
Congress. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) angrily noted recently
that the Senate was "debating the debate," not the issue,
and that the situation was "close to anarchy."
What’s going on here?
John Yoo addressed this question in a recent New York Times
op/ed piece he co-authored, entitled "Why Are the Pacifists
So Passive?" Yoo is the former U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney
General who authored the infamous legal memoranda giving refuge
to the White House by narrowly defining torture, restricting the
right of habeas corpus, and putting the Geneva Conventions out
of the reach of enemy combatants. Hardly in sympathy with the
peace movement, Yoo is a hearty arch-conservative. And whether
you agree with Yoo’s take law and government, much of his
Times piece was right on.
Yoo describes current activity in Congress as a "political
circus," citing the juggling act carried on over various
bills supposedly designed to "rein in" the president.
"The one thing all the major Democratic proposals have in
common is that they are purely symbolic resolutions,” he
wrote. Behind all the bluster they have “all the force of
a postcard."
While legislative maneuvering was taking place in the Senate over
the Levin-Biden-Hagel-Warner versions of a non-binding resolution,
the leadership totally ignored two other Democratic proposals
that actually had some teeth – one by Russell Feingold to
stop funding the war, another by Barack Obama to mandate troop
reductions.
Next, Yoo correctly points out that Congress does indeed have
the constitutional power to end the war. The power is in the purse,
so to speak. One check the Founding Fathers placed on the President’s
authority to wage war, is that if the conflict costs anything
(and conflict always costs a ton), the money’s got to come
from Congress. Not only can they cut off money, they can restrict
how that money is used.
The critics of such an action would say Congress is micro-managing
a war (an argument Republicans made repeatedly debating the House
resolution), but if those in charge of war management have led
stupidly, irresponsibly, or in a manner contrary to the national
interest, Congress surely has an obligation to do just that.
Examples? There are many:
• In 1970, Congress passed the Supplemental Foreign Assistance
Appropriations Act, prohibiting the use of funds to finance the
introduction of American ground troops into Cambodia, or to provide
advisors to Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
• In 1973, Congress passed a second such appropriations
law cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after Aug.
15, 1973.
• In 1982, Congress cut off money for the Nicaraguan contras
(whom the CIA had been secretly assisting) with the passage of
the Boland Amendment.
• In 1993, a Defense Department appropriations act prohibited
funding for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited
number of military personnel to protect American citizens and
diplomats.
• In 1998, Congress passed the Defense Authorization Bill,
with a provision that forbade funding for Bosnia after June 30,
1998, unless the president made certain assurances.
With power comes responsibility. The Democrats might now be "in
power," but they’ve flubbed that responsibility and
have let their constituents down almost completely. Many people,
in and out of the peace movement, feel the American people did
their job in November, but members of Congress have thus far failed
to do theirs.
The truth is, many Democrats in Congress just aren’t sure
what to do about Iraq (John Conyers of Michigan being a notable
exception). That uncertainty, combined with phony Republican catch-phrases
about "supporting the troops" – a red herring
that totally ties the Democrats in knots – is causing them,
writes Time Magazine, to embrace a new brand of "realism"
and to "reach for the center."
By
Steve Morse
|
Back
|