Congress Exercising its

[AUman43 5]

Dick Cheney’s ignorance of the constitution would be remarkable in a high school student. For a Vice President, it’s breathtaking. Cheny is, of course, correct that the president, for better or worse, (and for the past six years, it’s been for worse, if not the worst) is the Commander in Chief. However, Article I of the United States Constitution charges Congress with the power to declare war, authority to appropriate money for the military and to provide for the common defense.

As every elementary school student is taught, this system of CHECKS AND BALANCES is integral to our constitutional form of government. It means in this case, that the President’s authority as Commander in Chief is neither UNLIMITED or WITHOUT SCRUTINY! The congress, far from usurping presidential prerogative , is finally exercising a distressingly minimal amount of its constitutional obligation to control an arrogant and imperial presidency run amok.

I do agree that it’s terribly ill advised for the Democrats to try and cut funds to the troops as a means to stop the war. However, on the other hand, Bush seems willing to cut funds himself by veto to push the democrats to sponsor an even tougher bill. It’s a dangerous game of POLITICS and PERSONAL ego and our country has no need of that now. If the democrats were smarter, they would support the war until Bush is out of office and let him hang himself through his no-win policies which involve his hell-bent desire for a military solution while ignoring the need for a political solution through negotiations with major players in the region. Can’t wait to hear the repubic hair spin on this!

JMO

[quietfan 233]

Let me see if I can say this in a relatively non-partisan way:

I have long lamented the fact that Congress seems to have ceded its constitutional power to declare war since WWII. That is the last time we've had an official declaration of war, yet how many military actions have we been involved in since then?

I understand that as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the authority to act to defend the country in an emergency situation (like invasion) when there is no time to wait for Congressional action, but none of our military adventures since 1945 have met that criterion. Korea might have qualified as such an emergency at first since our troops were under attack by North Korean forces almost from day one, but that sense of urgency sort of faded after several years of war. In Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somolia, Serbia/the Balkins, Afghanistan, and Iraq there was no sense of immediate national danger, yet there was also no declaration of war by Congress. [in Grenada perhaps it could be argued that US citizens--students--were in immanent danger, but even then many debated the degree and/or immediacy of the danger.] In most of these instances there was time for Congressional resolutions of one sort or another, but the resolutions always stopped short of a full declaration of war.

Perhaps if Congress had defended its war powers more aggressively in all those other cases, there wouldn't be such a debate over whether Congress can or should exert its authority now. Once Congress got in the habit of approving wars through resolutions short of actual declarations of war, or passively accepting military adventures by the executive branch without reaction, it opened the door for the sort of constitutional debate we find ourselves in now.

It also seems like, of all people, the military itself would be most concerned about a president unilaterally putting or keeping our troops in harm's way without oversight or checks and balances.

[Captain Liger 0]

It also seems like, of all people, the military itself would be most concerned about a president unilaterally putting or keeping our troops in harm's way without oversight or checks and balances.

We have little to no say so in where and when we go. We advise the President, certainly, but the final decision rests with him after extensive discussion between him and his cabinet. If we tried to do something everytime we got sent to some ratty third world country then that would be considered a coup which is not very becoming of a republic military that takes an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States.

[quietfan 233]

It also seems like, of all people, the military itself would be most concerned about a president unilaterally putting or keeping our troops in harm's way without oversight or checks and balances.

We have little to no say so in where and when we go. We advise the President, certainly, but the final decision rests with him after extensive discussion between him and his cabinet. If we tried to do something everytime we got sent to some ratty third world country then that would be considered a coup which is not very becoming of a republic military that takes an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States.

Of course...

I recognize that the military must follow the President's orders as commander-in-chief (unless those orders are illegal). I wasn't speaking so much about what the military personnel say or do in their official capacity.

It just seems like when speaking unofficially, such as in political discussions on this board, persons with military backgrounds are more likely to give the current President carte blanch while challenging Congress's role in military oversight. I would think that when speaking unofficially, as a citizen expressing his/her democratic voice, they would want Congress watching out for them and not letting the President put them in harm's way without adequate cause or the support of the American people (by which I mean without support of the mission, not support of the troops. I think almost all Americans support the troops, which is why so many of us don't want to see them at risk any longer in a quagmire like Iraq).

JMO, of course.

[Captain Liger 0]

It also seems like, of all people, the military itself would be most concerned about a president unilaterally putting or keeping our troops in harm's way without oversight or checks and balances.

We have little to no say so in where and when we go. We advise the President, certainly, but the final decision rests with him after extensive discussion between him and his cabinet. If we tried to do something everytime we got sent to some ratty third world country then that would be considered a coup which is not very becoming of a republic military that takes an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States.

Of course...

I recognize that the military must follow the President's orders as commander-in-chief (unless those orders are illegal). I wasn't speaking so much about what the military personnel say or do in their official capacity.

It just seems like when speaking unofficially, such as in political discussions on this board, persons with military backgrounds are more likely to give the current President carte blanch while challenging Congress's role in military oversight. I would think that when speaking unofficially, as a citizen expressing his/her democratic voice, they would want Congress watching out for them and not letting the President put them in harm's way without adequate cause or the support of the American people (by which I mean without support of the mission, not support of the troops. I think almost all Americans support the troops, which is why so many of us don't want to see them at risk any longer in a quagmire like Iraq).

JMO, of course.

Of course. Understood.

But wouldn't it be wise to maybe listen a little more to what the troops on the ground are saying than to listen to all the political bickering going on in the halls of Congress and the garbage you're force fed by CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC? We want you to support the mission because WE support the mission. We live with the reality of what's going on there every single day and we realize what the consequences are if we don't succeed. Politicians outside of the White House, for the most part, haven't a clue. Most think because they spend 72 hours "in country" talking to soldiers while donning combat boots and their not-so-good-i-wouldn't-wear-to-work suit that they have a firm grasp of the situation on the ground. I'm here to tell you that they don't. You won't get a firm grasp of the situation on the ground until you've been there at least 6 months. Most soldiers can see the big picture. Most politicians can't see past November of 2008.

Progress has been made in Iraq. It hasn't been as fast as most Amercians would like it but that's because we're so used to instant gratification. Mistakes have been made in the war, yes. I was present in Najaf when had several opportunities to kill Al-Sadr but instead we let him get away. So big mistakes have been made. But mistakes are made in every war. Tet was a mistake we could have prevented. June of 1950 in Korea was a mistake we could have prevented. Bastogne was a mistake we could have prevented. The entire Civil War was a mistake that could have been prevented. See what I'm saying? A military campaign will never be hunky dory and hindsight is always 20/20. If you really want to support the troops then get behind the President and support this mission because that's exactly what we do. Not because we're a bunch of lemmings blindly following our leader but because we believe in what we're doing over there.

Is Iraq a quagmire? Maybe. I dunno. It's dirty, it's hot, it stinks. People die everyday. It's a totally different world that most Americans wouldn't be able to deal with. But there is hope for that country. Ousting Saddam was the best thing we could have done for those people. Helping them elect a government and rebuild their infrastructure was and still is the right thing to do. Taking the fight to Al-Qaida and killing as many of those freedom hating bastards will always be the right thing to do. But having said all that there will come a time when the burden of running Iraq must fall solely on the shoulders of the Iraqis themselves and I think that time isn't too far off. I'm not so stupid to suggest we stay there 10 or 20 years and play wet nurses to all of Iraq. Not at all. If I did then I'd pray that the souls of those killed in action would come back to haunt me. There's only so much we can do for the Iraqis and they must take responsibility for their country because, ultimately, that's what it is. Theirs. My little black book of friends took a big hit back in December. I'm not willing to let happen much longer.

But like I said, if you really want to support us then support the mission we're conducting because we do. And we know better than CNN and those that would have you believe we're fighting against our will while improperly equipped.

[Tiger Al 0]

But wouldn't it be wise to maybe listen a little more to what the troops on the ground are saying than to listen to all the political bickering going on in the halls of Congress and the garbage you're force fed by CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC?

The Joint Chiefs have recommended troop focus be changed and advised against increasing troop levels. Instead, we're increasing the number.

[Captain Liger 0]

But wouldn't it be wise to maybe listen a little more to what the troops on the ground are saying than to listen to all the political bickering going on in the halls of Congress and the garbage you're force fed by CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC?

The Joint Chiefs have recommended troop focus be changed and advised against increasing troop levels. Instead, we're increasing the number.

I think the common soldier is glad to see a little extra help show up. My buddies in theater right now have told me so.

I guess I should have clarified. I meant listening to troops on the ground that are actually engaged on a daily basis. The team and squad leaders. The platoon sergeants. The platoon leaders and company commanders. These guys know their sectors better than any general. They almost always have the pulse of the populace in the area in which they operate. They don't neccessarily get attached to area they patrol but they claim the area they patrol, for lack of a better term, their "turf" so they take it personally when they're criticized by those stateside and that criticism comes in the form of "Iraq is a quagmire." They bust their rear day in and day out to make a difference. Some days it's enjoyable when things go their way. Some days it's very sad when a buddy gets killed. Some days it's very frustrating when progress doesn't go according to plan initially. Regardless, they believe in what they're doing. I know. I serve next to them every day. These guys regularly voice what they think tactics-wise to higher. Most of the time this input keeps going up the chain of command till it reaches the top. Unfortunately, a lot of the time when it does reach the very top its been skewed into something else. Omar Bradley was very good at getting the ground truth about what was going on at the soldier level. He was a soldier's soldier. He bypassed all the middle men (subordinate commanders) and went straight to the source. It would probably help if we had a few more Omar Bradleys out there today. And a few more Georgie Pattons as well.

Regardless of what the troop levels should be I wish those that don't support the mission would change their minds. Those that don't support the mission can't honestly say they support what we're doing and thereby I don't really feel they support us. And that's disheartening. If the common grunt can support the mission then that ought to be enough reason for the good folks of America to support it to. He lives it and stares death in the face every day and supports the mission without fail. I don't understand why America can't either...from the comfort and safety of home.

[quietfan 233]

I am absolutely sure the common grunt on the ground has a better understanding of his/her local tactical situation than I or anyone in Washington. I don't think that necessarily gives him or her any greater wisdom at the strategic or foreign policy level. It might even handicap a soldier's ability to view the big picture objectively. The local troops should be completely in charge of the local mission. However, there's a reason why we don't have them make the decisions regarding the greater strategic or national mission.

Ultimately, foreign policy is the responsiblity of the President and the Congress, each of whom has specific powers under the Constitution and each of whom should respond to the will of the people. Polls seem to indicate that the people are growing more and more dissatisified with path we are on in Iraq. If it's the wrong path, I think the best way to support our servicemen & women is by getting them off that path and out of harm's way, not by making them stay on it.