Iraq Catch-22: the Insanity

“The incoming Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats are ruling out any effort by members of their party to have Congress cut off funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq. Proponents of such a move say any funds lawmakers approve when Democrats assume control of Congress in January should be used to bring U.S. troops home." Dan Robinson VOA News 12/06/06

“The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. [Alexander] Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting ‘in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.’” Adam Cohen NYTimes 7/23/07

"To date, there has been absolutely no concerted campaign by Democrats or even by the major media-focused antiwar organizations in Washington to educate the public on why Congress using its power of the purse is the responsible way to end the war. No, everyone inside the 50-square mile radius of Washington, D.C. - politicians, activists, reporters, pundits, everyone - wants us to believe that Democrats are just Innocent Bystanders, that they have no power to do anything, and that, in fact, the Constitution does not include Article 1, Section 9 specifically stating 'No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'" David Sirota 9/26/07

“Specifically, Senate Democrats whine about not having 60 votes to pass Iraq-related legislation. They pretend they are innocent bystanders with no means to act, and some anti-war groups give the charade credence by echoing these excuses. Yet, if properly pressured, those Democrats might be able to muster 41 votes to stop war funding bills.” David Sirota 9/29/07

In my last post I talked about how the Minority in the Senate is usually the party that instigates filibusters. I was thinking later that was probably because the Majority party typically tries not to allow any legislation to reach the floor of the Senate that they aren't interested in voting for. I believe the Republicans were notorious for doing this while they held the Congressional majority they recently lost and the Democrats complained bitterly -- for good reason. The party in power sets the calendar for what matters get heard on the Senate floor and legislation only finds its way before the Senate if the Majority allows it. The Democrats have claimed that in a spirit of bipartisanship they will not play the same kind of hardball in this regard as the Republicans did when they were in power.

Sirota brings up the point that even if the Democrats are going to allow Iraq funding to be voted on they could still filibuster it. With 41 votes the Democrats could threaten to filibuster any Iraq legislation and stop a cloture vote from passing in the Senate. Cloture is typically invoked when one party threatens to filibuster. Once invoked cloture requires 60 votes to pass. If the Democrats could manage to vote as a block (as the Republicans seem to be able to do pretty well) 41 votes would prevent the remaining 59 from passing cloture.

One of the excuses some Democrats, most notably Sen. Biden, have used for not voting against Iraq spending is that they are afraid that the lack of funding might endanger the troops. The problem with that argument is is that not removing U.S. troops from Iraq also endangers them. This "catch-22" situation creates a stalemate between the Democrats who are for immediate or quick redeployment of the troops, like Sen. Byrd and Sen. Feingold, for example, and those who seem to be backing away from redeployment in the near future most notably, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. Unfortunately, for those of us who believe that redeploying the troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later is the better option, this stalemate prevents that from happening any time soon.

According to Joseph Heller's 1961 novel of the same name “'Catch-22' is a provision in army regulations; it stipulates that a soldier's request to be relieved from active duty can be accepted only if he is mentally unfit to fight. Any soldier, however, who has the sense to ask to be spared the horrors of war is obviously mentally sound, and therefore must stay to fight." (The American Heritage New Dictionary)

People have applied the Catch-22 reference to Iraq for a variety of issues including: Abu Ghraib, the 2002 Iraq War resolution, financial support for Iraqis.

But I think it is most aptly applied to the war itself as Ada Calhoun said in her 09/21/07 blog:

"Is pulling out of Iraq the right thing to do? Well, no. Is staying a good idea? Certainly not. All that's left is to pick the lesser of two great evils, and to never forget that George "What Me, Worry?" Bush got us into this hideous Catch-22. He has the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and thousands of American troops on his hands. May he go down in history as the worst president we've ever had and may someday we be forgiven for allowing him to take power and wreak havoc."

And if I may add, referring back to the origin of the term Catch-22 the fact that the Bush-Cheney group seems so intent on fighting the war in Iraq for the sake of fighting in Iraq with no believable reason given is an example of their insanity. The current reasons (forget WMD) include the usual: we have to support the troops (by forcing them to fight an apparently unnecessary war), or we have to protect the Iraqi people (by helping to destroy their country), or that we are fighting al Qaeda (who or what is exactly al Qaeda in Iraq?). Or the latest because we need to attack Iran, meaning we need to legitimize the current Proxy War: U.S. for the Sunni (who are also al Qaeda in Iraq?); Iran for the Shi'a (who are also the current Iraqi government?). For these bizarre and contradictory excuses alone their sanity should be called into question.

At the recent Dartmouth debate at least a couple of the Democratic Presidential candidates seemed to get the faintest glint of a deer caught in the headlights stare in their eyes when they were asked about their plans to end the war. Obama began by saying he planned to "drastically" reduce the number of troops and ended by saying "I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." And Clinton said "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find."

I couldn't help wondering if this hesitation has anything to do with the reports in a recent book that a high-level aide for President Bush has been advising or at least attempting to advise Democratic candidates on the Iraq War?

Bush said in an interview included in this new book, The Evangelical President, “If I were a candidate running for president in a complex world that we’re in, I would be asking my national security team to touch base with the White House just to at least listen about plans, thoughts,” he said.

Isn't that interesting. It has been widely reported that Bush, Cheney, their cabinet members and staff had very little regard for any advice they received from their outgoing Clinton counterparts. Too bad that when Bush himself was running for President or that when he became President, before and after 9/11 he didn't listen more carefully to the warnings and advice of the Clinton administration, especially those of then counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, regarding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.