[Peace-discuss] Senate votes continued occupation of Iraq

[C. G. Estabrook]

  Tuesday, July 17, 2007
  Senate votes to authorize continued occupation of Iraq
  [Updated; see below]

The Senate has just finished voting on what some (observers and 
Senators) may think is an innocuous amendment - the Cornyn Amendment 
which expresses the sense of the Senate that Iraq not become a failed 
state and a safe haven for terrorists. Introduced by Republican John 
Cornyn, the Amendment was immediately given a strong endorsement by Sen. 
Carl Levin, and was supported by all leading Democrats (Clinton, Obama, 
etc.). The final vote was 94-3, with only Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, and 
Russ Feingold casting a "no" vote.

So why do I call this a vote to authorize the continued occupation of 
Iraq? Because, as I wrote last Friday, the "vote against withdrawal" in 
the House, and the one which is about to (or not) take place in the 
Senate, has a Catch-22 in it. Despite calling for a "reduction of the 
number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act and shall complete the reduction 
and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq by not 
later than April 1, 2008," that vote also listed as one of the 
continuing missions, "Engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate 
al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq." And now the Senate 
has underscored that mission by nearly unanimously declaring it the 
"sense of the Senate" that Iraq not become a "safe haven for terrorists."

Combined with the language already in the withdrawal bill, the 
just-passed Cornyn Amendment totally guts any meaning from the 
withdrawal, especially given the fact that the Administration (and the 
media, for that matter) describe virtually all actions being taken in 
Iraq as actions against "terrorists."

There has been talk of a vote to "deauthorize" the war. And indeed, all 
the original rationales for the war have evaporated, so rescinding the 
original authorization might make sense. Unfortunately, the Senate today 
then voted to "reauthorize" the war under a new rationale - preventing 
Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. And everyone who voted 
for that amendment are part and parcel of that reauthorization, and have 
the blood of those who die from this day forward on their hands.

Update: In thinking about this, I think I emphasized the second part of 
the amendment (the part about the safe haven for terrorists) but missed 
the significance of the first part (the "failed state" bit). Because if 
the Senate has voted 94-3 that Iraq "must not become a failed state," 
there's only conclusion you can draw from that - U.S. troops must stay 
in Iraq until Iraq is "stable" and can "defend itself." Which, just like 
the safe haven part, is essentially a prescription for an indefinite 
occupation, which has just been endorsed overwhelmingly by the Senate.

http://lefti.blogspot.com/