Could Congress pull off a 1974-1975 redux, after all?
Yesterday I wrote about the limitations Congress might face in opposing a “surge” of American troops in Iraq if–as rumor would have it–such a surge is part of Bush’s new Iraq policy to be unveiled next week.
Today I read this article by E.J. Dionne, which describes some more creative solutions contemplated by Democratic leaders such as Biden.
As I wrote yesterday, at this point the only direct way to oppose the surge would be some sort of vast reduction in military funding as a whole–as opposed to the mere cutting back of foreign aid to a specific country, as was done to the South Vietnamese at the tail end of 1974, when US combat forces had departed years earlier.
But there are indirect ways, as well–for example, a Congressional resolution which could, according to Biden:
…have a powerful effect if it drew support from the significant number of Republican senators who are increasingly alienated from Bush’s policies. An anti-surge resolution might not bind the president, says Biden, but it would exert considerable pressure on him to reconsider his approach.
I’m not sure he doesn’t underestimate (or “misunderestimate”) Bush’s ability to resist such pressure. After all, as I pointed out yesterday, it’s not as though Bush is up for re-election. And I’m not sure he cares all that much, either, about the re-election prospects of those Republicans in Congress who might be anti-surge, especially when weighed in the balance against what he sees as the importance of fighting the insurgency and terrorists in Iraq.
But Biden has a few more tricks up his sleeve. And in this, he’s also aided by (what else?) the ghost of Vietnam:
Biden is studying whether Congress might reconsider the original Iraq War resolution, which is now as out of date as the news stories of 2002, the year it passed. The resolution includes references to a “significant chemical and biological weapons capability” that Iraq didn’t have and repeated condemnations of “the current Iraqi regime,” i.e., the Saddam Hussein regime that fell long ago. In effect, the resolution authorizes a war on an enemy who no longer exists and for purposes that are no longer relevant.
Dionne also points out that Senator Carl Levin has high hopes for the passage of a resolution he has crafted with another Democratic Senator, Jack Reed, calling for benchmarks and a withdrawal plan.
It remains to be seen what effect such resolutions might have on this particular President. But the drawback of any such “benchmarks and a withdrawal plan” is that they would make our schedule public and transparent not only to US citizens but also to the enemy, who would be more than willing to lay low during any “surge,” wait it out, and take over after we left.
The inherent telegraphing to our enemy of our lack of intent to–in that hackneyed, overused, but still important phrase, “stay the course”–would probably be a fatal blow to any campaign we might mount at this point. To put the kindest face on it, I wonder whether Biden, Levin, and their colleagues realize how important it is to communicate motivation and resolve to any enemy.
The consequences of the pullout in Vietnam were not only huge for those who suffered thereafter in Vietnam and Cambodia, but for the perception of American will and strength in the world. Our words and our promises were considered hollow; we were now a paper tiger. The same would be true–only perhaps more so–for an abandonment of Iraq.
The sharp cutoff in funding to South Vietnam that I mentioned in yesterday’s post was only one of several efforts by Congress back then, however, to tie the hands of the US in prosecuting the Vietnam War, even after our combat troops had been withdrawn. Vietnam timelines indicate the following, as well, acts which served to clearly telegraph our lack of intent there:
June 24, 1970 – The U.S. Senate repeals the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. [Perhaps a precedent for Biden’s current plans outlined above?]
June 19, 1973 – The U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate. The Amendment paves the way for North Vietnam to wage yet another invasion of the South, this time without fear of U.S. bombing.
This amendment was passed after all US combat troops had been withdrawn. It also would have tied Nixon’s (or any subsequent President’s) hands in any efforts to fulfill Nixon’s “secret promise” to South Vietnam at the time of the Peace Accords that the US would come to their aid militarily if the North violated the terms of those Accords in the future. Because of Congress, both the North and the South knew that was not going to happen.
Here’s another move by Congress from the timeline:
November 7, 1973 – Congress passes the War Powers Resolution requiring the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad.
This somewhat controversial resolution, whose constitutionality has been debated, remains in force today. It’s an example of the constant tension between the executive and legislative branches of government on the question of the powers to wage war, especially limited actions that fall short of a full declaration of war.
If you go back to that Vietnam timeline and read about events during the year 1972, you’ll get a deeper appreciation of what was happening there as Vietnamization progressed. As US fighting forces withdrew, the South Vietnamese were not doing badly against the North. However, there were heavy Vietnamese casualties on both sides (although not US ones) and the international community was protesting.
Crucial US support at the time consisted not just of military and technical aid, but of bombing Hanoi and Haiphong and mining harbors in the North. Note, especially, that the various Linebacker operations had been fairly successful against the North. The Case-Church amendment, passed not long after as a result of outrage against the casualties involved, made it a certainty that no more such operations could be launched.
Read, also, the years 1973 through 1975. The Peace Accords represented a strange compromise that allowed Northern forces to remain in the South, against the will of the South Vietnamese, who were powerless to object because of their fear that the US would cut assistance (which, of course, ended up happening anyway). The successive acts of Congress mentioned above, even before the final financial blow at the end of 1974 (particularly the Case-Church amendment), effectively curtailed the US ability to respond, and the North and South both knew it.
The history of struggle between Congress and the President for control of war powers reached a head during Vietnam. Iraq and Vietnam are different, but they are linked in certain ways. The next few months will see a repeat, not of the specific details, but of the general principles of the jockeying for power between the two branches.
The consequences were huge back in the 70s. This time they will be even larger, no matter which way it goes.
I think it’s entirely possible for the Congressional Democrats to do just as you suggest and try to orchestrate a pullout. It’s not ignorance on their part, though: they know perfectly well that the Islamists will claim it as a victory.
_They want us to lose_.
For nearly forty years now the abiding principle of the Democratic Party has been that America is wrong, America is bad, and America must be changed. They don’t like the way we spend our money, they don’t like the hamburgers we eat, they don’t like the cars we drive, and they don’t like the stores we shop at. Pretty much _every aspect_ of modern American life is repugnant to the Democratic Party. They are essentially a coalition of voters and politicans incapable of being happy in modern America. They _hate_ the way most Americans live, and the prospect of a humiliating military defeat, economic chaos, and possibly more attacks on our country are a pleasing prospect to them.
They _don’t want_ America to be rich and strong. That is immoral in their eyes. And if we are attacked by terrorists, that is justice in the view of the Democrats.
I’m not talking about some radical fringe, by the way. This is the mainstream Democrat view. Talk to any of them — they don’t like America.
What scares me is that the Dems and their liberal media satraps may succeed in convincing more and more Americans that they are correct. The future of the world will be grim if that’s the case. Without a confident and strong America, freedom will not spread. Literally billions of people around the world will suffer in misery if the Democrats prevail.
We cannot allow them to bring about another defeat. Deluge your Congressmen — especially if they’re Democrats — with letters and emails. PHone their offices. Demonstrate. Dig deep and donate to Republicans next election season. Write letters to your paper. Get active. Because if they keep their grip, freedom is doomed.
Demonstrate.
I would be interested in seeing some big, pro-war rallies.
Over at the Corner, they are saying that the surge has to be (at minimum) 30 K troops, and for 18 months. Owing to previous analyses of our manpower situation, that sounds, to me, like essentially no liberty for anyone in uniform for the duration of GWB’s presidency.
I realize that many in the blogosphere don’t want us to just leave. _I_ don’t want us to just leave. However, the political support for this surge, in my judgment, is just not there. And this political opposition — reflected in the polls, reflected in the elections, and reflected now in a Democratic House and Senate — is not just going to roll over.
I don’t think Bush has the political base to pull off a surge at this point. I thought he did, as recently as a month ago. But not any longer. If he goes on TV and asks for a big surge, he will not get it. Ultimately, resolution or no resolution, he has to answer to the people, and their elected representatives. And they are no longer for this war.
I’m not talking about some radical fringe, by the way. This is the mainstream Democrat view. Talk to any of them — they don’t like America.
You realize of course that the American people just handed both houses of Congress to these Democrats you are talking about. Now why in tarnation did they do that?
Steve:
The voters gave the Dems control of Congress because the Dems have gotten very good at lying about what they really believe, and have most of the major media organizations as their megaphones.
I’m not one of these people who thinks the “sheeple” are easily manipulated — it took a long, concentrated campaign of lies, coupled with some very spectacular Republican screw-ups, to eke out a razor-thin margin of victory.
What I fear is that the Dems will use their power to eliminate the risk of a Republican comeback. We’ll start to see more about “fairness in media” which translates to “muzzling Fox and Clear Channel.” We’ll see more about how unreliable those blogs are. We’ll see the Dems use the Congressional subpoena power to harass and intimidate anyone who’s a threat. And we’ll probably see plenty of old-fashioned corruption and thuggery, too. Those tire-slashings and voter intimidation last time will be repeated.
I actually have confidence that the American people will eventually see through the Democrat lies and deliberate treason, but it will take a while, and during that time incalculable damage can be done to the country and the world.
I think Levin’s really onto something. But why stop with just a timeline for Iraq? I can think of lots of other uses for timelines.
Let’s have timelines for corporate growth, so we can all know when to buy XYZ. Wouldn’t that be more fair to all investors? How about a timeline for curing cancer? Personally, I’d like a timeline for a great physical/philosophical synthesis of our understanding of the past, present, and future of the universe. Why not a timeline for the next Mozart, including which symphonies will be concluded on which days? World peace? Immortality? Just snap your fingers, draw a Gant chart, and it’s bound to happen!
God save us from phb’s.
Too bad Bush did not allow the military to break the backs of the insurgents when they first gained momentum two years ago. Rather than earning any goodwill or help from Europe, the UN, the Left, et. al., Bush gave the hand wringers more grist for their defeatist mill.
That there is even the remotest possibility of a repeat of the implosion of US assertiveness that followed Vietnam is a travesty. Bush deserves blame for not having the courage of his convictions (which would be nice to hear him identify from time to time), but the Democrats deserve to be loathed as the 1938-style appeasers they are.
Short-sided pragmatism (cowardice?) will only make the defense of liberty more costly in the future. Punting our defense to our children is a despicable way to behave.
All Jihadi roads lead to Teheran, where the theocratic despots have been chanting “Death to America” for nearly 30 years and putting their IUD’s and truck bombs (Riyadh) where there mouthes are. We should finally acknowledge that we at war with these primitives and give them “death FROM America” to worry about. It would be a moral act of self-defense that would be more beneficial to human life–theirs and ours–than continuing the denial of reality that is our current foreign policy.
sorry, IED’s (too bad they don’t use more IUD’s though)
Matthew said:
“Too bad Bush did not allow the military to break the backs of the insurgents ”
Matthew is right. I hope the President will continue to break the backs of the Jihadites. Breaking the backs of some domestic traitors would be a a good idea too.
What would reassure me about the Democrats is if they occasionally let slip the idea that they were pursuing their ideas because they believed it would be more effective against our enemies. It’s as if they need to be reminded of that in the discussion.
Republicans are certainly not immune from that sort of political calculation, and I shudder at it from them, too.
You’re missing a fundamental point here.
Repeat after me, Neo:
“Iraq is not our country.
“It is for the Iraqis, not us, to decide whether we leave or stay”.
We’ve got to get out of the habit of thinking that the world is our backyard. It is not.
The decision as to whether we withdraw or not should depend on Iraqis’ wishes, and theirs alone. Not on President Bush. Nor on Congress.
It is THEIR country.
“Those tire-slashings and voter intimidation last time will be repeated.”
What voter intimidation? What tire-slashings?
What on earth are you talking about?
On the other hand, check this out:
“This summer, Michigan state Rep. John Pappageorge (R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.” African Americans comprise 83% of Detroit’s population.”
Source: People for the American Way,
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368
.
You’re missing a fundamental point here.
Repeat after me, Rodney:
“Iraq is a conquered nation which was lead by a now deposed and executed murderous despot.
“It is up to the US foreign policy determiners, not the Iraqis, to decide whether the US leaves or stays”.
“We’ve got to realize that world-wide Islamic terrorism is a huge threat to the homeland, because like it or not, IT IS.”
“The decision as to when the US withdraws should never depend on Iraqi public opinion, although the wishes of their elected government should have some weight(but NEVER determine), US foreign policy decisions about Iraq. On President Bush, who is empowered by the Constitution to wage war, let’s hope he has the courage of his convictions, for is a certainty that Congress will not.”
“It is THEIR country, thankfully now conquered and neutralized, that was led by Saddam, who mooned the UN for 13 long years while simultaneously bilking it of billions.”
See? That wasn’t so hard, now was it?
Grackle says: “Iraq is a conquered nation”.
Huh, Grackle? I thought you guys like to argue that the point of the US invasion of Iraq (or one of the points anyway — the reasons given change so quickly that it is hard to keep track) was to “free” Iraq. If Iraq is a conquered US fiefdom, how is it “free”?
.
If Iraq is a conquered US fiefdom, how is it “free”?
Well now, let me see …
A Democratic government based on a constitution and run by elected representatives of the Iraqi people, free and fair elections … hmmm. Offhand I’d say that the Iraqis are a LOT more free than before Saddam was deposed, even as a conquered nation. All we ask is that whoever ends up running Iraq should not be inclined to pull Saddam-like shenanigans or the US will end up having to go in again to topple the next regime. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
BTW, I’m one of those who applauded the toppling of Saddam for US security reasons, not because I particularly wanted to see the Iraqis ‘freed.’ As I watched Bush’s UN speech, which was a litany of reasons to topple Saddam, I thought at the time that it was a public relations mistake by Bush to even list the freeing of the Iraqis as one of the goals. And I took it for granted that Iraq could be in turmoil for years after the deposal. The anti-war folks and the MSM have been able propagandize it to the effect that democratization is now one of the goalposts for success or failure in Iraq. I’m for the democratization of Iraq on the theory that a friendly democracy will be less likely to be a future threat than if a murderous dictator like Saddam were in charge – NOT because I have a burning desire to see the Iraqi people enjoy a democratic government.
Rodney:
http://www.wisgop.org/site/Viewer.aspx?iid=4828&mname=Article
And it’s not just some out-of-context quote from PFAW, it’s a criminal charge. Political terrorism, courtesy of the Democratic Party.
Finally, something contemporary. Good one Neo 🙂
Thanks Neo, I was waiting for you to do something like this concerning charges that Vietnam funding cuts didn’t matter. I also knew vaguely, that there were other restrictions, such as no air support. That really broke the back of the resistance.
The South Vietnamee government was basically a US puppet regime. Puppet regimes usually don’t last very long after the puppetmaster leaves the scene.
—
Rodney, it helps sometimes to understand reality as it is, and not as one wishes it to be. After falling of Berlin wall, the world is US backyard. This is what globalization is about. And if US would not install order at this backyard, it would be ruled by criminal thugs. I do not like such future, and you should not like it too, if you have some brains in your head.
It’s not often people have the honesty to admit up front their lack of foresight, predictive acumen, and credibility. I commend your willingness to stand up and say that your analytical abilities are moribund and defective.
That kind of candor is refreshing.
…That kind of candor is refreshing
unlike your delusional diatribes
Actually, considering the horror of what happened in Vietnam after the US left—sorry, but I see no reason to rejoice over the fall of the “puppet” government; the Communists were much, much worse.
Talkin, nothing is worse to the Left than a US puppet government. How would you, as an aristocrat, feel about anyone that works with someone that has more power than you, in order to free the serfs from under your power?
That is how the Left feels about governments working with the US. Not tolerable. The serfs must be held in check, Talkin, otherwise what purpose is left for the Left?
Ymar, you have a point. The Left certainly does love to demonize our allies, all the while idolizing our enemies. (Remember their adulation of the noble Arafat? And just think how much they like Castro!)
Holding the serfs in check? This might be why they applaud the fall of Saigon so much—and never mention such inconvenient facts as re-education camps, boat people, the number of people killed after the Americans left and the fact that many Vietnamese fled to the very “Puppet masters” the kindly Communists supposedly saved them from (i.e., America.)
Of course, the Left explains this as being just the “rich” and “American allies” who fled, despite the fact thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese fled (we’ll never know how many tried, and were lost at sea.) Of course begs the question that, if so many thousands of people were so closely tied to the allegedly corrupt, weak, “puppet” American government they had to run when the Communists took over—well, maybe the puppet government was reasonably popular with the Vietnamese—or at least better liked than what Communism had to offer. Hey, give me the choice between a puppet government, and a totalitarian, fanatical Marxist government, I’ll take the puppets every time!
But don’t ask these questions! No, no, our allies must be demonized as puppets of America ; wouldn’t do to let the sergs get too uppity.)
“November 7, 1973 – Congress passes the War Powers Resolution requiring the President to obtain the support of Congress within 90 days of sending American troops abroad.
This somewhat controversial resolution, whose constitutionality has been debated, remains in force today.”
How important were those last two SCOTUS appointments, and the next one, now? We might end up seeing this one go to court at some point.