A Nonsensical Plan For Iraq

National Review Online: Proposal By Sens. Lugar And Warner Undercut's President Bush's Authority

(National Review Online)  This column was written by the editors of National Review Online.

---

Sens. Dick Lugar and John Warner have gotten together and given birth to the Sensible Bipartisan Iraq Compromise Hailed by the Establishment Act of July 2007. If this is the best that the GOP's elder statesmen in the Senate can do, let's hope a new generation of statesmen rises soon.

Lugar and Warner are frank about not being able to force President Bush to change his strategy in Iraq unless Congress cuts off funds, but that doesn't keep them from offering their legislation undermining the surge. Lugar says, "We are attempting to ensure that the U.S. military and diplomatic policy is prepared for change" when Gen. David Petraeus reports in September. To that end, the Lugar-Warner amendment says President Bush shall "initiate planning" for a drawdown in forces, and present his plan to Congress — including "results from modeling and simulation efforts by appropriate departments and agencies of the U.S. government" — no later than October 16, 2007. This would be a meaningless exercise except as a way to create more political pressure to adopt an Iraq Study Group–style drawdown.

Never mind that the Pentagon is, as a matter of course, already engaged in such contingency planning. What exactly is Congress going to do with these plans when it gets them? Debate them on the Senate floor? Maybe representatives of al Qaeda and Jaish al Mahdi can be called to testify at the committee hearings.

Here Congress is not usurping just the role of the commander-in-chief, but also those of the combatant commander and commander of CENTCOM, whose responsibility it is to review such plans. If the Senate really were to micromanage this process, we're sure it wouldn’t be long before our Iraq war plan would include highway funding for Sen. Byrd’s West Virginia and a new courthouse in every state.

On the basis of his public statements, the last person to have any role in drawing up war plans in Iraq should be Senator Lugar, who is in the grip of a fundamental confusion about the conflict. He says we need to transition away from "interposing ourselves between sectarian factions." Does this mean that as al Qaeda continues to unleash savage bombings against the Shiite population we have to stand aside, as it's merely bloodletting between two "sectarian factions?" Lugar insists that we will still engage in counterterrorism after an ISG-style drawdown, but he seems utterly innocent of the realities with which our troops are grappling as they gain the upper hand against al Qaeda.

We have been able to win Iraqis to our side against al Qaeda only by providing them security. In the New York Times yesterday, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch explained how it works in his area south of Baghdad: "When we go out there, the first question they ask is, 'Are you staying?' And the second question is, 'How can we help?'" Lugar and Warner want the answer to the first question to be "No," thus making it unlikely that Iraqis will aid us against al Qaeda. Fomenting civil war — to undermine the central government and drive desperate Sunnis into its arms — is a key strategic goal of the terror group, one that Lugar and Warner want to cede to it.

Their amendment also calls on President Bush to submit a new authorization for the war because our mission has changed since the original authorization in 2002. On their own terms, Lugar and Warner are about 4 1/2 years too late. We succeeded in toppling Saddam and ending his weapons-of-mass-destruction threat after the initial invasion. If Congress hadn't wanted us to fight against the ensuing insurgency to establish order — in keeping with our obligations as an occupying power — it could have acted then. That insurgency, of course, prominently featured some of the same enemies — the Fedayeen and the diehard Baathists — that we had fought during the invasion.

Perhaps what Lugar and Warner object to is that we have been fighting in the environment of a hotter civil war since the Samarra bombing of February 2006 (an al Qaeda operation). But the surge has begun to tamp down this intensified level of sectarian violence. In any case, all these considerations are moot, because President Bush has the constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to continue the fight against al Qaeda and other insurgent groups in Iraq without congressional authorization.

Finally, the amendment calls for the United States "to establish a predictable and regular multi-lateral diplomatic forum related to Iraq that meets frequently and is open to all parties in the Middle East." Senator Lugar believes "it would be in the self-interest of every nation in the region to attend such meetings." But the self-interests of the nations of the region are, unfortunately, not determined by Senator Lugar. If they were, the region would be a much more kindly and gentle place.

Lugar maintains that these meetings would be "a means of applying regional peer pressure against bad behavior." This verges on the childish. Has Lugar ever witnessed a meeting of, say, the Arab League? In the Middle East, peer pressure rarely discourages bad behavior. If certain nations don't attend, according to Lugar, "their intransigence will be obvious to the other players in the region." But Iranian and Syrian intransigence is already obvious. The question is, What are we going to do about it? Lugar and Warner's answer is to do both of these rogue states an enormous favor, by undermining our position in Iraq just as we are beginning to get a better handle on the security situation.

We, too, think diplomacy is important. We would love Lugar and Warner to offer a "sense of Congress" resolution citing any instance in history in which a country's diplomatic leverage has been enhanced by losing a war. If they were to succeed in discarding the progress that has recently been made in Iraq, Lugar and Warner would undermine not just our military position there, but, perversely, our diplomatic position in the entire region.

The Iraq debate is in a sorry state when something like the Lugar-Warner amendment passes for a serious proposal. At least they are providing a kind of constitutional lesson: in why the Founders, in their wisdom, didn't want Congress to conduct wars.

[sjc_1]

I think that BushCo wanted to believe that the Iraq insurgency would just burn itself out, like a wildfire. With all the artillery shells that they took from the unguarded ammo dumps after the invasion, they have enough IED material for the next 10 years.

[knyghtwolf]

Uh I found out that bush & cheney DID go to war; They stuck their heads up each others B U T T S and fought for air. Still do it to this very day. How do you think scooter got his name?

[oxmyx-2009]

Bush is our Nero. We need to change the constitution on war making powers so no more marginally retarded (98 IQ)silver spoon figure-heads who hear voices (schizophrenic?)can take us down the drain again.

[roger_inkart]

And the NRO once again falls all over itself to defend Bush's "plan" for the Iraq War.

You're both idiots. You're both wrong. You're both harming the nation because you care more about your warped, war-mongering ideaologies then you do about common sense or the well-being of the US.

[imnho]

The fact that the Iraq goverment is taking off the whole month of August indicates to me that the whole idea of the Iraq goverment standing up while the american goverment stands wown is a pipe dream. They are not serious about forming a stable and secure goverment there. This means that blood is being shed for a goal that cannot be met.

we need a new direction and the sentors in question are trying to provided it.

Bush does not have a plan to end the Iraq war. At this point he is just trying to run out the clock, so that the situation will be just as hopeless for the next president.

[grumpas]

Sooooooooooooo we pull out of Iraq, where do we send our military in force to fight Al Quaeda, which country? If we don't decide where the front line is, AL Quaeda will.
Posted by jowand

I am glad Bush nor any of you had anything to do with defending this country during WWII! We would now be speaking German and Japanese! This ill conceived plan of your glorious leader was a disaster from day one. It's a lost cause to even try and fight terrorism the way he is doing it! The last I knew about it the Sunni's were terrorizing the Shiite's and visa versa! But, considering the fact people are starting to wonder why Bin Laden is still out running around free as a bird! Suddenly it's become Al Quaeda! It would be nice if your glorious leader had a clue who he was fighting??????

[ioweign]

Unlike Bush and Cheney, Warner actually went to war, serving in WWII and as a Marine Corps officer in the Korean War. Lugar also served his country in the US Navy for four years.
Posted by bluebayou599
---------------------------
Kerry served too but he sure as he(( is not fit to run anything, let alone be president.
Posted by guysdigdirt at 07:21 PM : Jul 17, 2007

Nobody said anything about Kerry and you are just trying to change the subject. Bush should undergo fitness for duty, based on his behaviour.

[mimi611]

We have turned our country over to an idiot and you want to let him keep running it. He should be in jail. Bush's authority? Why would you want an habitual liar and warmonger to have any authority? You neocons are amazing.

[sjc_1]

The boarder between Afghanistan and Pakistan is where Al-Qaeda really is and always has been. We had them on the run and would have crushed them and the Taliban back in 2003, if Bush had not been so obsessed with Iraq.

We need to redeploy our troops within the next 6 months back to this region to finish the job that was cut short. Leave enough troops in Iraq to go after Al-Qaeda there. Al-Qaeda IS the enemy and not the Iraqi people.

[elz523]

Sooooooooooooo we pull out of Iraq, where do we send our military in force to fight Al Quaeda, which country? If we don't decide where the front line is, AL Quaeda will.
Posted by jowand at 10:16 PM : Jul 17, 2007

I beleive that Al Qaida is still pretty active in Afghanistan. You notice there is much less resistance in the US to military action in Afghanistan.

In any event this is a false choice. The answer lies elsewhere. Just maybe if we were to replace the incompetent fools we have in the administration today, we could find ways to pre-empt our enemies without resorting to either war or appeasement.

[jowand]

Sooooooooooooo we pull out of Iraq, where do we send our military in force to fight Al Quaeda, which country? If we don't decide where the front line is, AL Quaeda will.

[elz523]

"On their own terms, Lugar and Warner are about 4 1/2 years too late. We succeeded in toppling Saddam and ending his weapons-of-mass-destruction threat after the initial invasion. If Congress hadn't wanted us to fight against the ensuing insurgency to establish order %u2014 in keeping with our obligations as an occupying power %u2014 it could have acted then."

You are right NRO, Congress could have acted to 4 1/2 years ago to require Bush to submit a new authorization. Just because the GOP Congress didn't act at that time, the current Congress is not pre-empted from requiring a new authorization now.

The Israeli lobby (Sen. Leiberman and the NRO fools) are really pulling out all the stops to go after anyone who disagrees with them. You can see this in how Lugar and Warner are now treated. It is too bad too. Israel deserves better than the lack of support that will ensue as more people wake up to who is trying to mold public opinion and why. They can point their fingers at Leiberman and the NRO!

[nearl4511]

I know it doesn't make sense to the NRO or WS staffs, but it isn't nonsense.

What Warner and Lugar represent is integrity, conscience, understanding and humility. Their approach makes PERFECT sense.

You will not find these qualities any where near Mr. Bush nor Cheney.

[clemenhagen1]

"He says we need to transition away from 'interposing ourselves between sectarian factions.' Does this mean that as al Qaeda continues to unleash savage bombings against the Shiite population we have to stand aside, as it's merely bloodletting between two sectarian factions?

Here's what's classic about this quote: when the Shiites act, we here bloody wails from conservatives about the interference of Iran! We need to do something about those evil Iranians instigating violence that involves our troops. When the violence comes from "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" the administration and compliant press merely label it al Qaeda - period. The motivation for this is quite clear: al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not directly connected to the al Qaeda that perpetrated 9-11, nor did this branch of al Qaeda even exist prior to the invasion of Iraq. And just who, pray tell, funds this operation and provides the brunt of the "foreign" suicide bombers? That's right, boys and girls, our beloved friends the Saudis! You remember them...the allies who provided 15 of the original 19 hijackers. Or you remember the United Arab Emirates (the country where Halliburton recently announced intentions to relocated company headquarters), the country through whom the money to fund the "9-11 al Qaeda" flowed. Funny how the mainstream press doesn't seem to tell this side of the story.

[sharncedar]

"why the Founders, in their wisdom, didn't want Congress to conduct wars"

Have ya ever read the constitution, BTW. What the founders didn't want was a tyrant, in recent memory for them was Louis XIV who ruined France with endless wars and George III tyrant of England. So they made it absolutely, explicitly clear that only Congress could declare a war. Congress has not declared a war in Iraq. The statement that Congress "authorized force in Iraq" doesn't meet the constitutional test, they must declare war for the President to conduct a war. George Bush's actions are a usurpation of Congress's right to declare war, as are his signing statements and frequent open defiance of laws such as the act against random wiretapping.

The founders never has any interest or idea about limiting Congress' authority. The constitution is framed to limit the president's authority, as one-man tyranny was the danger in that age just as it is in our age. Their worry was not "Congress conducting a war" in fact the first Congress had a strong hand in the conduct of the Revolutionary war. Their worry was a president who would seize powers not allocated to him, and since the president controls the military forces this is the only serious danger to our democracy.

[guysdigdirt]

This drivel might have made sense if we had a 'President' to "undermine" instead of a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp.
Posted by JohnShaft4
----------------------

You have some deepseeded issues with your mother don't you, it just comes out in your writing.

If you are so up to deciding who is fit to be president and who is not then why dont you run for the job, or are you afraid you cannot even look good next to " a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp"?

[guysdigdirt]

This drivel might have made sense if we had a 'President' to "undermine" instead of a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp.
Posted by JohnShaft4
----------------------

You have some deepseeded issues with your mother don't you, it just comes out in your writing.

If you are so up to deciding who is fit to be president and who is not then why dont you run for the job, or are you afraid you cannot even look good next to " a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp"?

[guysdigdirt]

This drivel might have made sense if we had a 'President' to "undermine" instead of a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp.
Posted by JohnShaft4
----------------------

You have some deepseeded issues with your mother don't you, it just comes out in your writing.

If you are so up to deciding who is fit to be president and who is not then why dont you run for the job, or are you afraid you cannot even look good next to " a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp"?

[guysdigdirt]

Unlike Bush and Cheney, Warner actually went to war, serving in WWII and as a Marine Corps officer in the Korean War. Lugar also served his country in the US Navy for four years.
Posted by bluebayou599
---------------------------
Kerry served too but he sure as he(( is not fit to run anything, let alone be president.

[bluebayou599]

"I think...I would like to see the next president keep Bush/Cheney on as the people to clean up Iraq."
Posted by Monty_4 at 05:27 PM : Jul 17, 2007

It might be fairer if Bush and Cheney were forced to serve a fifteen month tour of duty in Iraq to make up for what they missed in Vietnam. And send the editorial staff of the NRO along with them for good measure!

Unlike Bush and Cheney, Warner actually went to war, serving in WWII and as a Marine Corps officer in the Korean War. Lugar also served his country in the US Navy for four years.