House passes war appropriations bill - Chimpy throws a hissy fit

Staying in Iraq also be a disaster. What have we to show for four years of occupation? A nearly stable democracy? or a nearly civil war?


disaster staying? how so? maybe its not as pretty as we all would like but fighting extremists never is. are you saying there will be no difference betweem staying and tucking tail and leaving before its more table?

is there a perfect plan? nope. but you have to choose the lesser of two evils and i think staying and trying to get that country on the right foot is by far the lesser one.


it is still a democracy and having public elections where iraqis can vote for whomever they wish is a very impressive accomplishment, especially for a country that had not had that right for generations. And there is somewhat of a civil war brewing...but when a country is trying to find itself these things happen. our forefathers should know. Unfortunately, building a country is not something that can be figured out be resorting to a book. it cannot happen in a few years, it cannot happen unless there is full commitment, and unfortunately it cant happen without fighting of some type.

 

so if a majority of the iraqis want us to leave should we respect their wishes. it is their democracy, right?

how about if a majority of the troops who are serving in iraq want to leave? if you like, i could provide a link to a poll taken in february 2006, where something like 70% wanted to get out by the end of 2006.

how about if a majority of the american public wants us to leave.

 

What if we are cheap and we can't afford "full commitment"? If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to cut your loss?

 

Since when do you make military policy based on the soldiers' wishes?

Leadership isn't always about doing what's popular. A perfect example of that is that the American public always wants tax cuts too - doesn't make that a terrible idea.

 

Certainly that's how this got started. But the question going forward is how to best manage a variety of things: American lives in the short-time, American interests in the long-term, and the commitment we made to the Iraqi people, regardless of how misguided it may have been.

In this case, the second is the biggest concern. Like it or not, leaving will completely destablize an already unstable region. While the current situation is a mess, just walking away will be twice the mess. And telling your enemy that you're walking a way a year before doing it just makes the problem that much worse.

 

By the way, to the people that say the situation is "unwinnable", thatmay or may not be the case. But it may simply be a matter of picking a better strategy.

For example, the Iraqi war will end up costing about $500 billion at the minimum. There are 25 million people in Iraq. If, on day one, you had just told everyone "if you put down your weapons, commit to the process, and vote, each one of you will get $20,000", I'd be willing to bet a lot of money your insurgency would not exist. You'd have to distribute it over time and ensure people remain committed, but people would be in a position to truly better their lives - and in that scenario, especially in a secular country, self-happiness almost always wins. It's basically bribery, sure. But we're spending the same amount, and a lot of lives and political capital on the same goal.

 

This makes the assumption that the US Army acts as a net stabilizing force, which I believe is far from proven. It is my opinion that the country will not reach a state of real stability as long as the US Army is in the country. I think there is tangible evidence for this on the basis of British history in occupying Transvaal, Pakistan/India, Afghanistan, the far east, etc.

 

The problem is that our own presence is destabilizing since we attract outside elements who want to fight us in Iraq. The US has had two strategies in Iraq that are incombatible. One is to stabilize the country the other is the its better to fight them there than here. If that's the case then we have to accept that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, in otherwords making Iraq the battlefield of our choosing. If we continue to make Iraq a battlefield it won't be stable.

 

So Congress should only have a bill to defund the war if it is sure to pass?

How about any other bill? Is it only right to propose bills, if they will most likely pass? Wierd to think this; or that only bills to defund the war should be held to this strange standard.

I don't see your "battlefield objective angle" at all.

 

So true. I hope. Pat Buchanan, though against this war is often accurate as to what his fellow conservatives/ GOP'ers are up to.

What else can the WH crowd or WH hopeful guys like McCain and Giluliani wish for but some miracle to bail them out on their Iraqi political dilemna.

I think Hagel is hoping to jump in and scoop up the GOP nomination once the warmongers have come tumbling down with just the GOP most conservative Faithful or the war profiteers on their side.

 

Except it's not really just Bush spin. It's pretty much part of the argument Democrats were making from day 1. I think it's more widely accepted than just the Bush Administration that leaving would create a bigger mess.

This is certainly possible. However, the problem is that you have various sides vying for control of a country that's in the middle of a critical region for the US. If it was just a miscellaneous country, that would be one thing. But destabilizing Iraq could lead to ramifications within Iran, Saudi Arabia, and for Israel. Plus, it likely destabilizes the price of oil, which will threaten worldwide economic growth.

That's quite the risk to take to find out what will happen if we leave. The plan calls for us to leave Iraq by October 2008. At that point, I'd much rather hold off a few more months and give a new administration an opportunity to fix the problem with a different strategy before simply leaving and seeing what happens.

 

The American people elected the democrats with a clear agenda, bring our troops home.

End this war.

Not only the human cost, but the monetary cost of this war is outrageous and we have no winning end game.

I am glad the last 2 years of the Bush presicency have been rendered moot by a democratically controlled Congress.

Bush is the worst president in US history.

DD

 

No, Congress can pass bills that they don't think will pass. Its cynical but there is nothing unconstitutional about it. When it comes to bills regarding a military action Congress should respect it's own and the Executive's Constitutional role regarding who determines military strategy.

If you think that's weird then Article II of the Constitution is weird.

When Congress sets in a funding bill specific benchmarks on the battlefield that have to be met to meet funding requirements that is interfering within the Commander and Chief's Constitutional perogatives.

[edit]I understand that some of these benchmarks have been taken out and haven't had a chance to read the passed version of either bills but I will say a specific Congressional strategy to stop the surge using funding is Unconstitutional as that is interfering with battlefield strategy. The Constitution is clear that it grants Congress the power to declare war and it is also clear that the President is the Commander and Chief. That says that While Congress can start, or stop, a war the President is the one that determines strategy.[/edit]

 

No, Congress can pass bills that they don't think will pass. Its cynical but there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Actually many laws are eventually passed after being defeated a few times. This is just politics.
Of course politics applies to war.


When it comes to bills regarding a military action Congress should respect it's own and the Executive's Constitutional role regarding who determines military strategy.

If you think that's weird then Article II of the Constitution is weird.

Well, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.



When Congress sets in a funding bill specific benchmarks on the battlefield that have to be met to meet funding requirements that is interfering within the Commander and Chief's Constitutional perogatives.

Again, entitled to your opinion.

BTW where do you get your opinions on legal such issues as the the relative role of the Executive vs The Legislative, the role of the "Commander in Chief" etc. . The Federalist Society?

I'd suggest case law, statutes, legislative history to research the original intent, not just a quick read of the Consitution.

At the minimum, you should accept that there are legal authorities that oppose your views.

 

I think the problem is the belief that we can stabilize Iraq when our presence is part of the problem.

If you are worried about the price of oil also consider then where is the Iraqi oil? We've been there for 4 years and haven't seen Iraq returning to oil production. It doesn't seeme like our occupation has resulted in oil stability but the opposite and as long as insurgents and jihadist want to make things difficult in Iraq its unlikely we will see oil production of Iraq.

I won't deny that if we leave Iraq things might not be much worse. They likely will but at the moment I don't see longterm improvement in Iraq even if we stay.

 

I would suggest you read the Constitution before reading other sources. It seems like you and many others are looking to reinterpret the Constitution to favor a particular result.