[Peace-discuss] No surprises
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Wed May 12 23:38:24 CDT 2010
Obama Scraps Iraq Withdrawal
Created 2010-05-13 07:41
By David Swanson
So, we elected a president who promised a withdrawal from Iraq that he, or the
generals who tell him what to do, is now further delaying [1]. And, of course,
the timetable he's now delaying [2] was already a far cry from what he had
promised as a candidate.
What are we to think? That may be sad news, but what could we have done
differently? Surely it would have been worse to elect a president who did not
promise to withdraw, right?
But there's a broader framework for this withdrawal or lack thereof, namely the
SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), the unconstitutional treaty that Bush and
Maliki drew up without consulting the U.S. Senate. I was reminded of this on
Tuesday when Obama and Karzai talked about a forthcoming document from the two
of them and repeatedly expressed their eternal devotion to a long occupation.
The unconstitutional Iraq treaty (UIT) requires complete withdrawal from Iraq by
the end of next year, and withdrawal from all Iraqi cities, villages, and
localities by last summer. Obama's latest announcement doesn't alter the lack of
compliance with the latter requirement. Nor does it guarantee noncompliance with
the former. But it illustrates something else, something that some of us have
been screaming since the UIT was allowed to stand, something that pretty well
guarantees that the US occupation of Iraq will never end.
Imagine if Congress funded, defunded, oversaw, and regulated the military and
wars as required by our Constitution. Imagine if the president COULDN'T simply
tell Congress that troops would be staying in Iraq longer than planned, but had
to ask for the necessary funding first. Here's the lesson for this teachable moment:
Persuading presidents to end wars only looks good until they change their mind.
Cutting off the funding actually forces wars to end.
When the US peace movement refused to challenge the UIT, it left Bush's
successor and his successors free to ignore it, revise it, or replace it.
Congress has been removed from the equation. If Obama decides to inform Congress
that the occupation of Iraq will go on into 2012, Congress' response will be as
muted as when the Director of National Intelligence informed Congress that
killing Americans was now legal. And what can Congress say? It had no role in
ratifying the UIT in the first place.
And the peace movement is in large part on the same path with Afghanistan,
working to pass a toothless, non-binding timetable for possible redeployment of
troops to another nation. Congress sees itself as advisors whose role it is to
persuade the president that he wants to cease the activity that most advances
presidential power. And activists share that perspective.
But what happens if the president becomes unpersuaded about ending both of these
wars? What in the world are we supposed to do then?
We have an alternative to painting ourselves into this corner. The alternative
is to build a movement of war opponents (and advocates for spending on human
needs and/or tax cuts) that can pressure the House of Representatives to cut off
the funding for the wars. Of course, this isn't easy. It's much harder than
collecting signatures on a toothless resolution. And it's dramatically harder
than watching the president create an unconstitutional treaty (something Bush
was forced into primarily by the people of Iraq) and then stepping aside to
celebrate.
But there is no stronger message that could be used to persuade a president than
a growing caucus of congress members denying him the money. And once a majority
is reached in the caucus of war defunders, then the war simply has to end,
whether the president is persuaded of anything or not.
So, the lesson to be learned from Obama scrapping his current plan for an Iraq
withdrawal is not that we should phone the White House and complain. It's not
that we need 20 more cosponsors of the nonbinding timetable for Afghanistan. The
lesson is that we must tell members of the House of Representatives that they
can vote against war funding or we will vote against them.
Not a new lesson, I realize, but the Constitution is always less read than
talked about.
Peace and War
This site is maintained by a union shop at MayFirst.org
Source URL: http://www.davidswanson.org/node/2677
Links:
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/12/iraq-us-troop-withdrawal-delay
[2]
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/05/12/that-iraq-withdrawal-we-elected-in-2008/
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list