Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

<< Thursday Thirteen -- #1 | Main | Weekend Open Trackbacks >>

Whose war is it anyway?

One of the big talking points on the left in the last couple of days is that the war in Iraq is a "War that should have never been waged at all." I heard this statement attributed to Jack Murtha on the radio this morning, but I can't find the quote online. I can find a quote from Barack Obama though: "We've got a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged,'' Obama said.

This is why I ask the question "Whose war is it anyway?"

The left is fond of calling this "Bush's War", but is it really his war? I don't recall him crafting the resolution to use force. I don't recall him being the one to vote for it in overwhelming numbers. That was both houses of Congress. They approved the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 (Public Law 107-243 -- Oct. 16, 2002).

I submit to you that this was a declaration of war as authorized by the Constitution, and that Congress exercised its power to declare war. Democratic Representatives and Senators authorized the war, together with the Republicans.

Further, Weapons of Mass Destruction were only one of many reasons for that authorization. Here's a list of the reasons:

• Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors.
• Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998) declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations".
• Iraq persisted in violating resolutions of the U.N. Security Council by "continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace".
• Iraq refused to "release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman".
• Iraq refused to return "property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait"
• The Iraqi regime used "weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". 
• Iraq attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States in 1993.
• On "many thousands of occasions" Iraq fired upon "United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council".

The list goes on, including citations to specific U.N. Security Council resolutions and U.S. Laws passed long before the authorization to use military force. One U.S. Law cited is Public Law 105-238, also known as the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This particular law:

expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

I submit to you therefore, that the Iraq war is not a "war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged". I submit to you that in urging the Congress to authorize the use of force against Iraq, the President was merely doing his duty as specified in the Constitution to execute the laws of the United States.

This is not "Bush's War", it's "Congress' War". Congress declared war in accordance with the Constitution, and the waging of the war has been in accordance with the Constitution and with the authorization to use force. Let's look a little deeper shall we?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

This doesn't say "As Barack Obama determines to be appropriate". It doesn't say "As Jack Murtha determines to be appropriate". It doesn't say "As Nancy Pelosi determines to be appropriate." Nor does it say "As long as Harry Reid believes that the war isn't a 'lost cause'."

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

This was a declaration of war. By declaring war Congress made it not "Bush's War", but "Congress' War.

I find it strange that our Congress would declare war, authorize and fund the war and then, before the war is concluded declare the war to be lost, and quit the field of battle without realizing that when you start a fight, walking away is likely to end up with the enemy shooting you in the back.

Congress may have the power to begin a war, but Congress does not have the power to end a war. Wars don't end unless one side or the other is defeated. Wars don't end because you "walk away", they end because the opponents negotiate a surrender or a cease-fire. Walking away from Iraq won't end the aggression against the United States in the global war on terror (yes, it's still a war on terror, as authorized by Public Law 107-40, regardless of whether Democratic members of Congress want to use the term or not). Instead it will embolden the enemy to bring the fight to us.

The power to negotiate treaties, and I submit to you that a surrender or cease-fire agreement qualifies as a treaty, does not reside with Congress. The power to negotiate treaties belongs to the President of the United States, with the Advise and Consent of the Senate.

Timetables for withdrawal established by the Congress are an infringement upon the Constitutional authority of the President. Tying war funding to such timetables is a cowardly way to ensure the defeat of the United States Armed Forces by denying them food, armor, and ammunition, the tools needed to win the war that Congress authorized.

All of the political posturing by Democratic representatives and Senators assumes that the American people have short memories. It assumes that we don't have access to public records. It assumes that we are ignorant dolts easily led to believe that these so-called leaders weren't the ones that got us into this war.

While there have been many mistakes made in Iraq, the fighting there was duly authorized by Congress. Today's claims by the left that this is "Bush's War" and that it should never have been authorized are simply attempts to discredit the administration and to deflect criticism from themselves to the President, a man that is simply doing his duty as the commander of our military and our chief executive.

Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=650
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/4/26/650.aspx

TexasFred responded with:

Well, it's not Bush's war, even though I have never felt we needed to go there, we went, and that by God means we fight it and do it right... Bush had a ton of support from most everyone when we went there but even in it's inception, I was adamant that we were going the wrong way, and I still feel we did, but hey, we all have opinions, and mine isn't that of a Dem... We had Iraq boxed in with the 'No-Fly' zone and every time they fired on us, we took out a missile site... I don't argue the authority OF the POTUS in doing this, he is, IMO, very legal in his actions, my ONLY bitch is that we didn't go in with nearly enough ferocity, and as such, we're still there...

Perri Nelson responded with:

I agree with you for the most part. I think we went in with enough ferocity though. My problem is that we didn't sustain that ferocity. When we worry about international opinion regarding how we fight a war rather than on achieving the objective I think we are asking for trouble. We went in with enough force to thoroughly overwhelm the Iraqi military. We accomplished in a very short time our primary objective. I think where we went wrong was that we failed to realize we were facing two separate enemies in Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his army were only one of those enemies, and we soundly defeated them. The other enemy was, and still is the Islamic terrorists that we are waging war with around the world. That's my main problem with what the "Democratic" members of Congress are doing. They still refuse to recognize that we're fighting a different enemy than the one we initially engaged in Iraq. The terrorists we're fighting aren't fools. They run and hide from overwhelming military force, then they wage a slow war of attrition, blending in with the civilian populace and sniping away a little at a time. We've seen this pattern in lots of engagements with the terrorists that we're currently fighting. We've seen it in Afghanistan. We've seen it in Iraq. Ethiopia is experiencing it now in Somalia. By withholding funding unless there's a timetable for withdrawal from the war, Congress is abdicating their responsibility to defend the United States. All to make a political point.

Bookmark this on Delicious 

Comments to this entry are closed.

<< Thursday Thirteen -- #1 | Main | Weekend Open Trackbacks >>