Presidential Politics of a War
Since when was 1 year before the Iowa Caucus the time to start a presidential campaign? I know that part of the story is fueled by the fact that neither party has an inherent candidate and that the story is relevant to the new Congress in that presidential candidates are positioning their rhetoric around their bids. However, this still seems somewhat absurd.
First, we have no way of knowing what the relevant political issues will be in 2008. We don't know what the status of Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror will be. We don't know if the economy will have a "soft landing" the next several quarters or if it will get a hard hit from higher interest rates. We don't know what the actions of the 110th Congress will be. Even if Tom Vilsack, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or any other democratic nominee had the perfect answer to some issue of our time now, odds are the solution would be obsolete in 2 years anyway. This is especially true to matters of foreign policy.
Although I find the constant coverage annoying, it has a major advantage for Republicans. Democrats have the wide open field and feels they need to get constant media attention to win. Media attention brings media scrutiny. Even liberals get scrutiny now. There are simply too many fora for the New York Times or NBC to have it any other way.
Unlike an actual president, candidates don't have a press secretary to handle day to day communications, in which mistakes are simply bound to be made. A whole year of media appearances and reporter questions will give us a treasure trove of Democratic mistakes. A mistake could be a simple misspoken word or letting a more controversial agenda item slip by. Moreover, any but the most skilled of Democratic presidential candidates end up splitting the coalition. Of the last 10 presidential elections only 3 have been won by a Democrat. Jimmy Carter got 50.1% of the vote in the aftermath of Nixon and a smooth-talking Democratic consensus builder in Clinton got 2 victories with less than 50% of the vote.
Anytime a Democrat goes to the base of the party, they simply alienate moderates. John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale are the recent Democratic loser examples. Democrats also face the problem of being too calculating and causing a liberal backlash. This happened to Gore in 2000. The liberal vote was a little suppressed and went partially to Nader. This liberal backlash feeling can be seen as many Democratic primary voters don't think Hillary has been anti-war enough.
Republicans on the other hand, need not to screw up or nominate a totally uncharismatic old guy. That kind of candidate plays to Republican stereotypes and contributed to H.W. Bush's & Doles' loses. Thankfully, I don't see many such candidates in the current Republican field.
The Democratic Presidential politics have left me to scratch my head about what Congress thinks it is doing. Congress has all of 3 or 4 foreign policy roles. First, Congress has the authority to raise and maintain the armed forces. Second, Congress has the authority to establish the rules of the military (UCMJ and other internal procedures). Third, Congress has the ability to declare war. Finally, the Senate must ratify treaties (this is how most conventional wars end). That is about it. Congress does not get to decide what troops go where or how the money they appropriate is spent.
So, if Congress believes the war in Iraq to be hopeless beyond repair and a true waste of our time they can pursue the following options: Cut off funding, ratify a treaty ending the war if one magically got agreed to and signed, or shut the hell up. Congress cannot declare that only so many troops do this or declare that everyone must leave within a certain amount of time or anything like that. The only way to do these things is to not allocate money for the furtherance of the war, and thereby force the President to either bring people home or leave them without supplies abroad.
Teddy Roosevelt did this in his Presidency. He wanted to sail the US Navy around the world to show off America's power. Congress refused to appropriate extra money. So, TR sailed the Navy to Asia, where they promptly ran out of supplies and couldn't make it home. He then went to Congress to ask if they were going to leave America defenseless with our Navy halfway around the world. TR won the pissing match.
Since we know that no treaty is coming in the next few months regarding Iraq, Congress can either cut off funds or shut up. There is nothing inherently unpatriotic or malevolent about cutting off funds to a war if you honestly believe it must be stopped immediately. However, your only other intelligent option is not getting in the way. Foreign policy cannot be conducted by committee. The American people re-elected George W. Bush because of or in spite of his Iraq policy. Sorry guys, he tells people where they go until January 2009.
Legislative attempts at seizing parts of the Executive Branch's foreign policy authority end in disaster. Let me take a random Democratic Senator at his word. Okay, you want Iraq to work out but you think we must leave Baghdad and send the army to Anbar Province, Afghanistan or home. How effective will counter-terrorism be if we hand the world a giant placard saying effectively "go here if you want to avoid American forces"?
What about a troop cap? Well at absolute best... it will make no difference because the number of troops needed will never rise to that ceiling and it won't be invoked. At worst the hindrance of limiting the commander-in-chief's options will lose us the war. To assume that the cap will do any good requires arrogant and silly presumptions. It requires the assumption that we will never in fact need that many troops AND that the executive branch will ignore reality and intentionally hamper the war effort with more troops (although I'm hard-pressed to think of a time in history where too many troops, ina nd of itself, was the source of a military problem).
While those who hate Bush may think these seem like rational conclusions, it defies common sense. Why would George W, Bush make unpopular foreign policy decisions against the reality of the situation? For those of you who are thinking that "the generals" are against his plan, stop a minute. As with any military opinion, there are some commanders, including generals who disagree. There are many generals and admirals in the armed forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and a member of the Iraq Study group are advising the President. To assume that the military and executive branch are wrong and I, random Congressman, know better and that things couldn't possibly change is the height of arrogance. It takes a long time to pass a law. Conditions on the ground change by the minute.
Let's have an honest debate if the war must end now or not. If so, then one should kill the funds and force the entire issue. If not, let the President work. It strikes me as much worse to leave soldiers in the field with binding restrictions that hamper the prospects of any potential future victory than to pull the plug up front. So what if a surge of 20,000 troops is an "escalation"? D-Day was an escalation too. The only pertinent question is an empirical matter of military strategy that I am not qualified to answer either in training or in knowledge. I am amazed so many Congressmen think they are different.
First, we have no way of knowing what the relevant political issues will be in 2008. We don't know what the status of Iraq, Afghanistan and the War on Terror will be. We don't know if the economy will have a "soft landing" the next several quarters or if it will get a hard hit from higher interest rates. We don't know what the actions of the 110th Congress will be. Even if Tom Vilsack, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or any other democratic nominee had the perfect answer to some issue of our time now, odds are the solution would be obsolete in 2 years anyway. This is especially true to matters of foreign policy.
Although I find the constant coverage annoying, it has a major advantage for Republicans. Democrats have the wide open field and feels they need to get constant media attention to win. Media attention brings media scrutiny. Even liberals get scrutiny now. There are simply too many fora for the New York Times or NBC to have it any other way.
Unlike an actual president, candidates don't have a press secretary to handle day to day communications, in which mistakes are simply bound to be made. A whole year of media appearances and reporter questions will give us a treasure trove of Democratic mistakes. A mistake could be a simple misspoken word or letting a more controversial agenda item slip by. Moreover, any but the most skilled of Democratic presidential candidates end up splitting the coalition. Of the last 10 presidential elections only 3 have been won by a Democrat. Jimmy Carter got 50.1% of the vote in the aftermath of Nixon and a smooth-talking Democratic consensus builder in Clinton got 2 victories with less than 50% of the vote.
Anytime a Democrat goes to the base of the party, they simply alienate moderates. John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale are the recent Democratic loser examples. Democrats also face the problem of being too calculating and causing a liberal backlash. This happened to Gore in 2000. The liberal vote was a little suppressed and went partially to Nader. This liberal backlash feeling can be seen as many Democratic primary voters don't think Hillary has been anti-war enough.
Republicans on the other hand, need not to screw up or nominate a totally uncharismatic old guy. That kind of candidate plays to Republican stereotypes and contributed to H.W. Bush's & Doles' loses. Thankfully, I don't see many such candidates in the current Republican field.
The Democratic Presidential politics have left me to scratch my head about what Congress thinks it is doing. Congress has all of 3 or 4 foreign policy roles. First, Congress has the authority to raise and maintain the armed forces. Second, Congress has the authority to establish the rules of the military (UCMJ and other internal procedures). Third, Congress has the ability to declare war. Finally, the Senate must ratify treaties (this is how most conventional wars end). That is about it. Congress does not get to decide what troops go where or how the money they appropriate is spent.
So, if Congress believes the war in Iraq to be hopeless beyond repair and a true waste of our time they can pursue the following options: Cut off funding, ratify a treaty ending the war if one magically got agreed to and signed, or shut the hell up. Congress cannot declare that only so many troops do this or declare that everyone must leave within a certain amount of time or anything like that. The only way to do these things is to not allocate money for the furtherance of the war, and thereby force the President to either bring people home or leave them without supplies abroad.
Teddy Roosevelt did this in his Presidency. He wanted to sail the US Navy around the world to show off America's power. Congress refused to appropriate extra money. So, TR sailed the Navy to Asia, where they promptly ran out of supplies and couldn't make it home. He then went to Congress to ask if they were going to leave America defenseless with our Navy halfway around the world. TR won the pissing match.
Since we know that no treaty is coming in the next few months regarding Iraq, Congress can either cut off funds or shut up. There is nothing inherently unpatriotic or malevolent about cutting off funds to a war if you honestly believe it must be stopped immediately. However, your only other intelligent option is not getting in the way. Foreign policy cannot be conducted by committee. The American people re-elected George W. Bush because of or in spite of his Iraq policy. Sorry guys, he tells people where they go until January 2009.
Legislative attempts at seizing parts of the Executive Branch's foreign policy authority end in disaster. Let me take a random Democratic Senator at his word. Okay, you want Iraq to work out but you think we must leave Baghdad and send the army to Anbar Province, Afghanistan or home. How effective will counter-terrorism be if we hand the world a giant placard saying effectively "go here if you want to avoid American forces"?
What about a troop cap? Well at absolute best... it will make no difference because the number of troops needed will never rise to that ceiling and it won't be invoked. At worst the hindrance of limiting the commander-in-chief's options will lose us the war. To assume that the cap will do any good requires arrogant and silly presumptions. It requires the assumption that we will never in fact need that many troops AND that the executive branch will ignore reality and intentionally hamper the war effort with more troops (although I'm hard-pressed to think of a time in history where too many troops, ina nd of itself, was the source of a military problem).
While those who hate Bush may think these seem like rational conclusions, it defies common sense. Why would George W, Bush make unpopular foreign policy decisions against the reality of the situation? For those of you who are thinking that "the generals" are against his plan, stop a minute. As with any military opinion, there are some commanders, including generals who disagree. There are many generals and admirals in the armed forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and a member of the Iraq Study group are advising the President. To assume that the military and executive branch are wrong and I, random Congressman, know better and that things couldn't possibly change is the height of arrogance. It takes a long time to pass a law. Conditions on the ground change by the minute.
Let's have an honest debate if the war must end now or not. If so, then one should kill the funds and force the entire issue. If not, let the President work. It strikes me as much worse to leave soldiers in the field with binding restrictions that hamper the prospects of any potential future victory than to pull the plug up front. So what if a surge of 20,000 troops is an "escalation"? D-Day was an escalation too. The only pertinent question is an empirical matter of military strategy that I am not qualified to answer either in training or in knowledge. I am amazed so many Congressmen think they are different.