President Obama is again asserting his right to act unilaterally and without congressional approval in going to war. In what has become a mantra for this Administration, Obama reportedly told members of Congress that he does not need congressional approval to unleash a comprehensive military campaign against the Islamic State. The President informed a few members at a dinner — a striking image of how low congressional authority has become in our tripartite system of government.
We have been discussing the growing concerns over President Barack Obama’s series of unilateral actions in ordering agencies not to enforce law, effectively rewriting laws, and moving hundreds of millions of dollars from appropriated purposes to areas of his choosing. One of the greatest concerns has been his unchecked authority asserted in the national security area. I previously represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s intervention in the Libyan civil war without a declaration from Congress. In the case, President Obama insisted that he alone determines what is a war and therefore when he needs a declaration. Since the court would not recognize standing to challenge the war, it left Obama free to engage in war operations in any country of his choosing. As with his approach in Libya, Syria and other combat operations (and most recently on whether he will resume the war in Iraq), Obama is again asserting his extreme view of executive power.
As in the past, Democrats are not just silent but actually applauding the circumvention of Congress — a precedent that will likely come back to haunt them if the next president is a Republican.
I have repeatedly testified (here and here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. However, war is a particularly egregious form of this unilateralism since the Framers worked hard to limit such powers under Article I and Article II.
Not only is the United States about to enter a new military campaign based solely on the President’s authority but he is promising to fight to the Islamic State “wherever their strategic targets are.” That may suggest additional violation of international law if the United States acts unilaterally with regard to the borders of foreign nations. Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy, seems to anticipate and support such actions. She is quoted as saying “This is not an organization that respects international boundaries. You cannot leave them with a safe haven.” For some countries, that view may seem quite threatening since the United States has been repeatedly accused of bombing and conducting operations in other countries without approval.
Once again, we are left with the questions of any limiting principle to this new uber-presidency. A president can now unleash a military campaign without congressional approval that could involve multiple nations. Yet, Congress seems content, again, to watch in a purely pedestrian role as if this invitation to a “dinner” is a sufficient substitute for congressional authorization. While it is not a check or balance, the president did pick up the check.
Source: Washington Post
Aridog, I know FDR was very involved w/ Churchill prior to war, but he did not want to join the battle. He turned out to be a good wartime president. I agree w/ your take on Marshall, inspired pick.
Aridog, I’ve read several books about the Churchill/FDR relationship, Meacham’s among them. As you know, FDR was ASTOUNDED @ how much Churchill drank!
Aridog, Great comment. And, MikeA is a gem, even if he is a Commie!
Nick…you just cited on the key differences of WWII and the wars that have followed. It makes a difference. You saved me another 5% of finishing my opinion of today’s conflicts. FDR let his generals, who didn’t make it political themselves, (a few were canned for that) run the show. However, FDR was intricately involved in WWII long before war was declared, but had to keep the PR in line with the isolationist groups. A good book on the subject is “Franklin and Winston” by John Meacham.
Wow…this thread as become sane again. I am impressed with both Mike Appleton’s post and Randyjet’s two responses, with only a few quibbles with either one. I’ve been struggling to put together a cogent post of what I think and feel, based upon my experience, both civilian and military, and those two did 85% of that for me. Thank you. Given I am rather conservative, that might be a surprise to some.
I will try to finish off the remaining 15% of my ideas, in a day or so, but it isn’t yet easy for me to do so because it conflicts with many things I have always believed, but no longer do. Examples would include I don’t think we should have messed with Libya at all, nor Syria, nor Egypt, in any manner what-so-ever…we did nothing positive in any of those places, but we did loose the demons within them. My solutions would be barbaric, but not unheard of in previous conflicts, and yes, they do include air power without ground troops. Massive air power along the lines of continuous Arc Light strikes until nothing raises its head in given territorial zones. I’ve seen Arc Lights…they are effective in suppressing most all life in a given zone. I doubt the American public would tolerate such brutality…but if they want peace otherwise, the choice is boots on the ground by infantry. You do NOT have victory until you control the land completely (as cited vis a vis Japan and Germany in WWII) and I no longer give a dang about democracy in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and anywhere else outside of Egypt and Israel in the ME. No more soldiers dying on the point of some tribal jack-wad’s spear.
I live in a community of Arabs from all the places we are proposing engagement and those where we have already done so on the ground. I am not unfamiliar with their opinions, some of which are changing as we speak and that troubles me. One thing is obvious, the layout of Iraq was a post -Ottoman contrivance of the west, around 1920 & 1922 and was not necessarily very sound. I am one who flew his flag upside down during the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait (a joke right, for that f’ing dictatorship?) but I supported the second war against Saddam who just would not let it be simple and cooperate. That is, until the Bremmer period, where all sense of sanity went out the window.
Finally, I am one who thinks both Bush43 and Obama have had the worst advice possible, given that neither had any experience, not one iota, in potentials of war, the real thing, not rhetorical. I am a Republican, more or less, actually vote independent, which is Michigan is called “plunking” or splitting tickets. I find Cheney’s latest rise to influence disturbing for Republicans…if they follow his lead they will lose, and continue to lose. That last remnant of the Nixon West Wing need to actually retire and go away.
Olly, There was intense politics prior to WW2. FDR did everything possible to stay out of it. Then Pearl Harbor occurred and politics was put on the back burner. Ike ran the European Theatre and McArthur the Pacific. FDR did not micromanage, he let soldiers fight. Churchill was constantly working on FDR to put more emphasis on Europe and less in the Pacific. But, FDR let his generals make the decisions. We won a war most thought we couldn’t because FDR did his part domestically, building up the war machine and keeping the people inspired to sacrifice and win. And our soldiers and sailors did their part. Ahh, back when we knew how to win wars, not read polling.
Nick – you are dead wrong on FDR. He tried everything to get the Germans to declare war on the United States so he could support Churchill. US destroyers were following German submarines and sending their location to the British. That is an act of war. He had already ramped up the military. He put the Japanese in the position where they had to go to war to ‘save face.’
When Hitler asked his generals what they should do about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the generals advised declaring war since an unofficial war was already going on.
Nick,
Was WWII as politicized as recent conflicts (wars)? Korea somewhat, Vietnam definitely, first Gulf War somewhat, Iraq/Afghanistan definitely and current definitely. My impression is the more politicized the conflict the more likely strategy is developed by suits and not the military. The results are what you would expect.
The fact is that during WWII, there were politics as usual with FDR haters still going strong. The GOP and Dixiecrats were isolationist to the extreme. with some Republicans having a bit of sanity. Fortunately, the Democrats controlled both houses and could keep the country running and winning the war. The GOP called WWII.Mr Roosevelt’s war which was given a voice in the movie, In Harms Way with the snotty brat of John Wayne’s character calling the war that. In fact, the GOP circled the wagons around the brass for the disaster at Pearl Harbor and they had a commission trying to pin the blame for that on FDR all during the war. Recently, under Tom Delay, they passed a resolution absolving Adm Kimmel for any blame, thus re-writing history as well as being extremely partisan. They slandered FDRs boys for not being in combat, which was an outright lie.
Some points of treason on the part of the GOP were the publishing of the US War Plans that had been agreed on with Churchill in the Acadia conference BEFORE the US entered the war. There was little doubt that the US would be going to war soon, and the only reason the Chicago Tribune was not prosecuted and the GOP leakers sought out, was that it was published on Dec.6. They then compounded their treason by publishing the fact the US had broken many of the Japanese codes even after the US was in the war. The GOP and Dixiecrats refused to allow absentee voting for the troops overseas for the reason that the GOP knew FDR would get a massive number of votes, and the Dixiecrats could not discover the race of the GIs applying to vote. The role of the Tuskegee Airmen was fought against and sabotaged at every turn throughout the war. The same was true of the black Armoured corps, and the role of black GIs.
While FDR let the military run the specific war operations and did not interfere, he did set the plans, objectives, and policies. The one operation FDR DID order was the Doolittle Raid which paid huge dividends leading to the battle of Midway. As a result, the UN Navy went from the greatest defeat in history, to the greatest victory in history in six short months. FDR had the smarts to take Gen. Marshall over more senior generals and make him Chief of Staff for the Army. That one move alone won the war. The GOP and Dixiecrats in 1940 almost revoked the draft and only Sam Rayburn using the gavel quickly saved it by ONE vote. He and FDR hid billions in the appropriations bills to fund the Manhattan Project, which was a huge operation. Talk about the imperial Presidency! The GOP of course denounced the dictator FDR in those terms too. I could go on for another hundreds of pages of how politics as usual was the norm in Congress ALL during WWII.
randyjet – using the same criteria used against the Nazis at Nuremberg, FDR could have been convicted as a war criminal.
Olly – the overall strategy for WWII came from heads of state, Churchill, Stalin, FDR, Hitler, Mussolini. Hirohito is the only one who is iffy.
Mike,
What do facts have to do with the rhetoric of nationalist against Obama….. It’s the same blame game.
I always pictured MikeA sleeping in cotton PJ’s like Ozzie Nelson.
I do not see how any air power will result in long term change. It may make a difference short term, but this is a complex situation. Especially when ISIS is fighting a war quietly for other regional powers. All we can do is escalate it. Haven’t we seen the folly on this by now?
slohrss, I do NOT think it will restore democracy or make for a peaceful Mideast. It WILL stop a brutal faction of Muslims from taking power in a good portion of territory and using it as a base from which to attack other countries. Getting peace and building nations is the locals job, NOT ours. It could have been successful if Bush had listened to the military in Iraq, but they chose politics over effectiveness.
Sounds good to me Mike.
The congress, mostly repubs have hurt the process of dealing with these countries by obstructing on ambassadorships:
Republicans have blamed the delay on a handful of poorly prepared political nominees, including an Obama fundraiser tapped to be ambassador to Norway. But that’s not the real cause of the backlog; 42 of the 65 ambassadors awaiting confirmation are career diplomats. The real reason for the long delays rests with the GOP’s decision to stop approving nominees in groups, in retaliation for the Democrats’ decision to eliminate the filibuster for certain judicial nominations.
As a result, the confirmation process has slowed dramatically. Even countries in crisis are not immune. The post of ambassador to Russia stood empty for nearly five months this year, at the height of tensions over Ukraine. Similarly, the position of ambassador to Saudi Arabia sat vacant for five months, as turmoil in Syria and Iraq raged. About two-thirds of all nominees languish for more than a year.
Currently, the United States has no ambassador in Turkey, a crucial player in the bid to combat the radical group ISIS in Syria and Iraq. John Bass, who was nominated in June, is still waiting for the green light to serve. The nominees for ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have been waiting since July. Even if Bass is confirmed soon,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/09/01/failure-confirm-ambassadors-has-real-costs/9vZYYZnTRJYFyo2tAAvBPK/story.html
Mike, An excellent post for the most part. The fact is that Bush threw out the plan for rebuilding Iraq and kicked out Gen. Gardner who had actual experience with the Kurds in Iraq, and installed a political hack Bremmer. He also ignored all the advice on how many US troops would be needed to control the country. You leave out what the US did after WWII in occupying Germany and Japan. The US imprisoned the Wehrmacht troops before screening them and then releasing them. They were not left free to roam about with their weapons. During WWII, the Army had tens of thousands of GIs who were being trained to speak Japanese to serve in the occupation force and in combat. They already had enough troops who were fluent in German, and they were installed as mayors in every German town. Kissinger as a Sgt was mayor of a German town after the war to give one example.
I have to disagree that using air power to help other forces to fight ISIS will result in more US troops being used on the ground. So I am in support of using our air power to destroy and know that we will have to have allies on the ground. While there is no sure thing in any action, this promises to be fairly productive and will stop the advance of ISIS. A better example is what happened in the Israeli fight for independence in 1948 when just a few WWII surplus aircraft defeated an Egyptian force and sent them back to Egypt. Tactical success will not completely destroy ISIS, but it can and will degrade their forces significantly enough to possibly turn it into a strategic victory.
leejcaroll – the Democrats could easily solve the ambassorship problem by giving in to the Republicans. The Democrats have gotten what they asked for.
I have periodically followed the various threads dealing with Iraq and ISIS, including the many comments posted by Eric. I have wanted to reply to a number of them, but simply haven’t had the time to do so.
History is intended to be rewritten. But there is a difference between revising and revisionism. Much of what is now being pushed to drag us back into Iraq is an example of the latter. Here are a few of my favorite myths:
1. Pres. Obama wrongly abandoned Bush’s successful program of nation building.
Wrong. The invasion of Iraq was never perceived to be a nation-building effort. Indeed, Pres. Bush criticized former Pres. Clinton for interventionist foreign policy and made it an issue in the 2000 election campaign. We were told that the war in Iraq would be short, that it would be eventually financed through Iraqi oil revenues and that throngs would crowd the streets to welcome American troops. The whole sendup brought up visions of Bagdadi women kissing GIs and soldiers passing out Hershey Bars to happy children.
2. If we had remained in Iraq, democracy would have eventually flourished there.
Wrong again. Iraq more closely resembles a legal fiction than a country. It is a creation of western powers. Kurdistan was added at the last moment to try to provide more balance between the Sunni and Shia populations in Iraq (most Kurdish Muslims are Sunni). And then, for good measure, a foreign Sunni Arab was installed as king. The Sunni and Shia split began, for those who care, hard upon the death of Mohammed amid disagreement over his successor. That was 1300 years ago. When Saddam was ousted, we should not have been surprised that the majority Shia population was not feeling particularly charitable after 80 years of Sunni dictatorship, nor given to power sharing.
Iraq is also a tribal society, adding to the difficulty of forging a sense of commitment to a national central government. That is why after over 10 years and billions of dollars spent on training and arming the Iraqi military, defense forces collapsed in the face of ISIS hostilities. Soldiers don’t flee when they’re fighting to protect something they believe in. Nationalism in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, only becomes important in confrontations with foreign (or occupying) troops. The U.S. military could have trained my old Boy Scout troop to fight better than Iraqi units have.
Moreover, the new Iraq we helped to create is not based upon western democratic ideals. It is a theocratic republic, and has been since its constitution was adopted in 2006. Article 2 expressly provides that “Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation,” and continues, “No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.” Indeed, even the federal judiciary, ostensibly independent, includes not only judges and legal scholars, but “experts in Islamic jurisprudence.” We successfully replaced a secular dictatorship with what will gradually become a theocratic dictatorship. Nice job.
3. We should remember the success of the Marshall Plan after World War II.
This is one of the worst analogues to the war in Iraq, but it has its true believers. There is simply no rational comparison between Iraq on the one hand, and Germany and Japan on the other. World War II left those countries devastated and their populations exhausted. However, both countries had largely homogeneous populations, strong social and cultural structures and well-developed industrial bases. And neither country was subject to post-war sectarian strife. We also had about 1.5 million U.S. troops in Germany and over 350,000 in Japan (plus additional allied troops). A Rand study in the early stages of the Iraq invasion estimated that we would need over 500,000 troops in Iraq to constitute an effective occupation force, a feat which we could never hope to accomplish without conscription and serious tax increases. Fat chance.
Now let’s consider what our policies have actually accomplished:
a. We have granted quasi-nation status to outlaw religious fanatics by labelling our fight against them a war rather than a police action, thus elevating their importance in the eyes of potential recruits. We have done everything except print the actual recruitment posters (although we can’t be sure that some subcontractor of an American company working in Iraq isn’t in the printing business).
b. We have been fighting a proxy war for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states who fear Iran as well as Islamic extremists, but who dare not take up arms themselves and risk alienating their own Sunni populations.
c. We have allowed ourselves to be drawn into the middle of sectarian civil wars throughout the Middle East, providing aid to groups we do not understand and whom we cannot even trust.
d. We have degraded our moral standing in the world through our wholesale violations of treaty and domestic statutory law governing the detention and treatment of prisoners, and have openly adopted torture as an acceptable state practice.
e. We have destroyed the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops and civilians without the slightest moral justification.
And now we have determined to repeat that insanity because? Because Americans are outraged over the beheadings of free-lance journalists who consciously placed themselves in harms way in the most dangerous places on earth. Because now they are killing Christians (ignoring the fact that the Christian population of Iraq has dropped from about 1.5 million to under 400,000 due to war and persecution by other Iraqis before ISIS even came into existence). And because Mr. Cheney and the usual war mongers are ratcheting up the fear machines and reminding us that if we don’t take on ISIS in Syria and Iraq, before long we’ll be fighting them in downtown Pasadena.
Well, you can put on the Depends and leave that AK-47 next to your bed tonight if you wish. I plan to sleep as I always do, in the buff and like a baby.
I didn’t see when the pages were going to be released though.
Thanks Annie! It will be interesting to read between the lines.
No Turkey. Can’t trust Saudi. Iraqi Army are losers. Who knows who is who in Syria. What about Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, and the rest? Great Britian said they wouldn’t join an air war. What about the rest of Europe? Where is the coalition? Fizzle. Bah. Let’s stay home.
Paul C. Schulte,
Logistical help is always helpful and humanitarian assistance from Turkey is better than nothing, but yes, military assistance would have been good. Oh well. Not a surprise.
Paul C. Schulte: “Eric – Bush should have left some of Saddam’s people around to take care of problems. Once they decided they were wiping all the current bureaucracy out of Iraq is when the problems began. There was no one they could depend on.”
One, that’s correlation, not causation.
Two, the “wiping all the current bureaucracy out of Iraq” overstates the actual policy and procedure.
For insight, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/opinion/17senor.html
Eric – the original plan was to leave some Baathist in place, but I think it was Bremmer who decided that he wanted to sweep clean with his new broom. That did not work well at the end of WWII (the Mafia took control of parts of Sicily) or Iraw. It is causation not just a correlation.
Annie
Lol.
I didn’t see it till now.
Yep… Minds greatly thinking alike.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages
More on those missing 28 pages of the 9/11 report.