Four days ago, I thought I might, perhaps, see "An emerging Democratic strategy to end the Iraq War." Since that time, Joe Biden told Meet the Press that it would be "unconstitutional" for Congress to place restrictions on the use of money appropriated for the mission, [i.e., "I surrender"], and Tony Snow confirmed by stating that the President can do what he likes if he does not approve of what Congress has passed, [ i.e.,"I accept"].
I do not know the country to which Biden and Snow pledge their allegiance, but mine has ONE government with THREE different branches to provide checks and balances, not THREE different governments, each doing as they please as if the other did not exist. The Biden-Snow doctrine suggests that the Congress passes laws and the President does what he wants, period.
In order to explain this nonsense, Biden-Snow abuse the meaning of the word, "micromanage". The President is Commander-in-Chief, so the doctrine goes, and thus anything to do with the war is the President's bailawick, and to enact restrictions would be to micromanage.
Consider another area where the President had broad authority, the conduct of foreign policy. Can Congress not determine how much money will be spent on an embassy in a particular country? Can Congress not determine whether to spend any money at all on an embassy in that country? Can the President just authorize an embassy to be built without getting the money appropriated by Congress?
So, analogously, what about Congress setting a limitation on the total amount of funds that can be spent on troops in the Iraqi theater? What about Congress triggering the release of funds only upon certification that the Iraq government has achieved specified milestones? What about Congress determining that no more than a specified number of troops can be engaged in Iraq? Indeed, what about John Warner's suggestion that this phase of the Iraq War---engaging ourselves in the civil war---is not even authorized? It is not micromanagement to set those goals, and it is not micromanagement to set conditions that determine whether further investment will be made, and to determine what the size of that investment is.
Unlike Biden, Barack Obama is investigating the tools at the disposal of Congress. Harry Reid has left a funding cutoff on the table. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told the President that his accountability moment was coming. I would like to offer an additional suggestion: do NOT pass the Omnibus Budget for 2006 as is, but rather exempt the White House budget. Put the White House on a quarterly budget, and set conditions to trigger the next quarter's funding. Those should include complying with Congressional requests for hearing participation and document production. They should also include recognizing the authority of Congress to set broad limits on our military engagement.
While our incredibly brave soldiers are risking, and losing, life and limb in Iraq, it is not too much to ask the comfortable politicians to brace for the battle, to fight tooth-and-nail at every corner, at every bend, with every means at our disposal, and to leave nothing unspent, to bring this disastrous engagement to an end. Whatever might be accomplished in the short-run, will unravel once we depart, and thus the loss of a single more life, or limb, is morally corrupt.
And, boys and girls, while you are at it, you might ask just who authorized the US to attack Somalia, and when such a measure passed. The timing is no accident. It is standard neocon fare to start new hostilities when the current war is deteriorating, just at the moment of decision. This is meant to conflate in peoples' minds the war in Iraq with the broader challenge of terrorism. Recall, Nixon's "incursions" and then bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, and Reagan's Grenada invasion following the killing of 200+ US marines in Lebanon.
