Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Warner, Lugar Draft Bill to Oust President, Declare Congress Commander in Chief”

« Iraq Preliminary Benchmark Assessment: Pretty Good, Could Be Better | Main | Who Can It Be Now? »

July 13, 2007

Warner, Lugar Draft Bill to Oust President, Declare Congress Commander in Chief

Hatched by Dafydd

[Correction added; see below.]

Republican Senators John Warner (VA, 64%) and Richard Lugar (IN, 64%) have introduced a bill into the Senate that would remove the president as Commander in Chief of the military, requiring him to report to Congress instead and implement battle plans at their direction:

Two prominent Senate Republicans have drafted legislation that would require President Bush to come up with a plan by mid-October to dramatically narrow the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

The legislation, which represents a sharp challenge to Bush, was put forward Friday by Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar, and it came as the Pentagon acknowledged that a decreasing number of Iraqi army battalions are able to operate independently of U.S. troops [because they have been decimated in both men and materials by valiant combat with al-Qaeda and Shiite militias -- as explained deep in the story]....

The legislation would direct Bush to present the new strategy to Congress by Oct. 16 and suggests it be ready for implementation by Dec. 31. [Regardless of what Gen. David Petraeus reports in September, one presumes.]

The proposal also would seek to make Bush renew the authorization for war that Congress gave him in 2002. Many members contend that authorization - which led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 - was limited to approval of deposing dictator Saddam Hussein and searching for weapons of mass destruction.

Fortunately, Warner and Lugar explained in great detail why legislation requiring the president to draft a battle plan at the pleasure of Congress -- a plan that would mandate a return to the strategy of 2005-2006 (which was working so well) -- would actually lead to victory in Iraq:

"Given continuing high levels of violence in Iraq and few manifestations of political compromise among Iraq's factions, the optimal outcome in Iraq of a unified, pluralist, democratic government that is able to police itself, protect its borders, and achieve economic development is not likely to be achieved in the near future," the Warner-Lugar proposal said....

The Warner-Lugar proposal states that "American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top."

Accordingly, Warner and Lugar say Bush must draft a plan for U.S. troops that would keep them from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and focus them instead on protecting Iraq's borders, targeting terrorists and defending U.S. assets.

In short, the "surge," not quite a month old, has failed miserably, so we must retreat, surrender, and declare defeat. Well a day! That's certainly compelling... who could argue with that?

But let no one accuse either gentleman of being an "armchair general." Sen. Warner served in the United States Navy during World War II for a solid year, rising to the rank of PO3. He joined the Marines later during the Korean War, then stuck it out for ten years in the reserves, eventually skyrocketing to the rank of captain. Sen. Lugar's career was even more illustrious: After graduating college, he served for three years in the peacetime Navy. Lugar was also an Eagle Scout. He has 34 honorary doctorate degrees.

[Corrected previous paragraph to add Warner's Marine Corps experience. - The Mgt.]

Legal experts, speaking on condition of anonymity because they have not been consulted, do not appear in the article, and in fact know absolutely nothing about the Warner-Lugar proposal, expressed skepticism that it was even constitutional for the United States Congress to order the President of the United States to craft and implement a specific battle plan.

But what do they know? To paraphrase Majority Leader Harry "Pinky" Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 90%), Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 95%), and, well, nearly every other Democrat and RINO Republican... all three branches of government are coequal; but some are more coequal than others.

We shall watch Congress's future antics with great interest.

(One more point needs elucidation, giving me the opportunity to play "sea lawyer" again -- a chance I rarely pass up! But I'll save it for the "slither on.")

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; I never graduated law school; I never attended law school; I never applied to law school; I know absolutely nothing about the law, probably less than the butcher at the Armenian meat market down the street opposite Ralphs Fresh Fare. But I enjoy playing lawyer on this blog. Try and stop me!

The AP article also contains this:

The proposal also would seek to make Bush renew the authorization for war that Congress gave him in 2002. Many members contend that authorization - which led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 - was limited to approval of deposing dictator Saddam Hussein and searching for weapons of mass destruction.

Curiously, however, the actual operational language in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq Resolution of 2002 mentions neither Saddam Hussein nor weapons of mass destruction. It says:

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.

A dizzying array of "whereases" lurk at the beginning, some of which do discuss WMDs; but there are also numerous whereases that talk about the danger of terrorists from al-Qaeda and other groups operating in Iraq; for example:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

This seems, at least prima facie, to justify continued combat in Iraq even after Saddam Hussein is deposed in order to prevent al-Qaeda and "other international terrorist organizations" from remaining in Iraq. And then there is also this:

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

UNSC Resolution 688 "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population" and "demands that Iraq... immediately end this repression" and "ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected"-- which seems a pretty open-ended call to create a democratic state in Iraq and not allow any group -- including the majority Shia -- to impose theocratic, dictatorial rule.

While I don't want to get too far out on a limb or express an opinion before the many lawyers (and sea lawyers!) in Congress have spoken, it sure seems as if the 2002 AUMF authorizes rather more than simply removing Saddam Hussein and bringing in international inspectors to look for WMD.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 13, 2007, at the time of 3:03 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2251

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

Dafydd, now surely you don't expect those charged with passing laws to be able to read and understand the laws and resolutions they pass. That would require at least a modicum of intelligence, something that seems to be in very short supply in our congress. Egos, on the other hand, are well represented there.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz at July 14, 2007 2:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I think these Senators are trying to place the burden for defeat at the feet of the Iraqi government. That seems to be the general idea. If the Iraqis had gotten their Oil deal out of the cabinet and onto the floor of their parliament for a successful vote there would have been more political progress for American politicians to see.

That is what it is all about for them. Politics.

However, they all want to keep troops there, they just want to tell the troops what to do.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at July 14, 2007 4:04 AM

The following hissed in response by: Tincan Sailor

I really wonder what these clowns see when they
look in the mirror every morning...This Congress
and Senate, both Democrat& Republican are
nothing more than a bunch of over paid clowns...

The above hissed in response by: Tincan Sailor at July 14, 2007 7:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

Congress sucks (broadly speaking), the Senate most of all, and everyone knows it. Just look at Rasmussen. So these sorts of things don't get me too worked up, since it's evidence of Lugar et al working to protect incumbency more than anything else.

One of the interesting things in the latest Rasmussen survey is the complete and total failure of the GOP to prepare for the coming presidential election, in even the simplest and most basic manner. The next generation Karl Rove is as yet nowhere to be seen! That's what we should be focused on.

Iraq is a preoccupation that has become close to a Congressional monomania, and if you needed more evidence than your own post provides, something to think about is right here, in the generic ballot data. On even the taxes and economy questions, where there should at this stage of the game be large leads for Republicans, the Democrats in fact are leading. If you are a GOP'er, this is most disturbing.

Maybe I'm just being a worry-wort, but unless the national party organization can start to do some basic blocking on tackling on these most basic of Republican domestic issues, the eventual nominee's inherent strength on foreign affairs won't matter very much, or at all. But without a national figure leading the way, and no obvious nominee, there is no agenda setter to move the debate forward. Congress gets to set the agenda, and that alone is enough to make you barf in disgust.

The above hissed in response by: MTF at July 14, 2007 8:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I sent a nasty note to Lugar {I am from Indiana, he has heard from me before.} I bet that is a shocker.

Anyway, I sent a note and I included the paragraph from the resolution about the Iraqi people.

Maybe we need to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to letting the state legislatures pick the Senators. It could not be worse.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye at July 14, 2007 1:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

Lizzard:

Let's not get to carried away with our biting comments. Abbreviating Warner's experience is not the way to keep knowledgeable people comimg back to your site. This post makes wonder about the veracity of your comments regarding matters of which I have limited knowledge.
`
Warner served in the navy during WWII (note he signed up at age 17, so he probably could not have gotten into the war any quicker) and then the USMC in Korea (note, in Korea, not just during the Korean war). I am sure you will be much happier that his time in the USMC was served as an officer. In addition, he was appointed Under Secretary of Navy in February 1969. For over five years during the war in Vietnam, he served in the Department of the Navy, and led the Department as Secretary from 1972-1974.

I should add that I am not a great fan of Warner. I think he is a wuss who has been in Congrees to long.

The above hissed in response by: Davod at July 16, 2007 1:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Article II Section 2 Constitution of the United States

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at July 16, 2007 5:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Last time I checked it takes more than an Act of Congress to amend the Constitution

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman at July 16, 2007 5:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Davod:

Abbreviating Warner's experience is not the way to keep knowledgeable people comimg back to your site. This post makes wonder about the veracity of your comments regarding matters of which I have limited knowledge.

You're right; I was hasty and skipped a section. Thanks for calling the mistake to my attention; I have corrected the post.

But the error doesn't affect the central point: Neither Warner nor Lugar has, so far as I can tell, any advanced training in military strategy similar to what one would get in the Naval War College. Neither has any experience commanding troops in combat above the company level. Neither has any experience at all fighting Islamic radicals.

And neither has any business declaring that the counterinsurgency strategy of Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Jack Keane, and Fred Kagen is doomed to fail... even while it succeeds faster and stronger than anyone expected.

Both men's military experience is trivial (Warner eventually rose to the same rank as John Kerry, though it took Warner longer). Both have a history of arguing that the strategy cannot possibly work (they simply call it "the surge," giving no indication they understand it's anything other than tossing a few more troops into the existing strategy).

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at July 16, 2007 1:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

Dafydd:
I agree with you but such is the nature of politics. I have come to the conclusion that some of these guys are either senile or they are being blackmailed. I speak of the Republicans.

The above hissed in response by: Davod at July 17, 2007 3:18 PM