[Peace-discuss] They could end the war, but they won't

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Here's how the Democrats, in control of both houses of Congress, could 
end the war even though they lack a veto-proof majority. But since they 
are well to the right of the US populace and in thrall to the elite 
interests that dictate the "bipartisan" US foreign policy -- notably the 
insistence on control of Mideast energy resources -- they will do 
nothing that will substantially interfere with the war, however much 
they carp at Bush et al. --CGE]

	From the Baltimore Sun
	A way out of Iraq that sidesteps Bush
	By Roscoe C. Born
	January 4, 2007

A new year, a new Congress, a new milestone as U.S. deaths exceed 3,000: 
This is a decisive moment in the urgent matter of the chaos and carnage 
in Iraq. With the report of the Iraq Study Group completed (and 
seemingly shelved), and with President Bush closeted with his war 
advisers, the question raised in conversation, on television news and in 
the press is: What will Mr. Bush decide?

A Newsweek cover, for example, asks, "Will Bush Listen?" An op-ed by 
David Ignatius in The Washington Post ends with these words: "The man 
under the spotlight knows he will have to make this decision alone." The 
unexamined premise is that America's next course of action in Iraq 
depends entirely on the final judgment of one man, George W. Bush.

But the nation's next step is not the president's alone to decide. The 
more important question is: What will Congress decide? There is a way 
for Congress to swiftly stanch the flow of American blood in Iraq 
without a bitter, partisan debate over the causes or conduct of the war.

Although President Bush might have invaded Iraq even without 
congressional approval, he did seek and get that authority in "The Joint 
Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against 
Iraq," passed by Congress in October 2002 and still in effect. That 
document presented 23 declarations of "fact," stated in "whereas" 
clauses, that, in the president's view, warranted his use of our 
military to invade Iraq. Congress agreed and authorized this war.

Now, regardless of whether those statements were at that time false or 
misleading, and putting aside any confrontations about the blame for the 
war, the fundamental "whereas" clauses that were the basis for war are 
now clearly wrong or no longer applicable. A few examples:

• "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security 
of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian 
Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its 
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess 
and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, 
actively seeking a nuclear capability, and supporting and harboring 
terrorist organizations."

That declaration, as we now know, was not true in 2002 and is not true 
today. Even if it had been true, the Iraqi regime that allegedly 
committed those offenses no longer exists. Today's Iraqi government 
poses no military threat to any other nation.

• "Whereas the current Iraq regime has demonstrated its capability and 
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and 
its own people."

The "current Iraq regime" referred to did use chemical weapons against 
its enemies and its own citizens. But the leader of that regime has been 
captured and hanged. Again, Iraq today poses no military threat to anyone.

• "Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law No. 105-338) expressed 
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States 
to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and 
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

The United States has invaded Iraq and removed "the current Iraqi 
regime" from power and has promoted a series of efforts to create a 
democratic Iraqi government - all declared by President Bush to be 
successful.

Whatever motives led the president to ask, and Congress to grant, 
authority to use the U.S. military to invade Iraq, the justifications 
stated in whereas after whereas are not true today. Yet they remain on 
the books, still the official position of Congress.

So the vital decision is not President Bush's alone, and Congress should 
not wait to proceed on its own. Congress is morally obligated - now - to 
review its outdated joint resolution authorizing force against Iraq, and 
to undertake a new joint resolution declaring, in essence, "Whereas the 
purposes of the original authorization have been served; whereas the 
stated reasons justifying the authorization no longer exist; whereas the 
objectionable Iraqi regime has been removed and the new Iraqi regime 
poses no military threat to its neighbors or the United States; that, 
therefore, U.S. military forces are no longer authorized to remain in Iraq."

Far-fetched? Not in the least. Congress used this very procedure in 1993 
to withdraw U.S. troops from Somalia.

Their orderly departure should begin as promptly as the military 
protocols for force protection will allow and be completed within six 
months of the passage of a new joint resolution.

It is important to note that this approach bypasses, for now, a divisive 
debate about Mr. Bush's war policies. If Congress wishes to examine the 
causes of this war, that is a separate matter that should not interfere 
with a rational review of a joint resolution that is obsolete.

Roscoe C. Born, a Sykesville resident, was Washington editor of Barron's 
magazine and a reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau. 
His e-mail is roscobornj at aol.com.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.congress04jan04,0,434924.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines