Redstate

if the war resolution can be revised as to render the current prosecution of war no longer meaningful and necessary, then Biden and the new Democratic Congress can effectively force Bush to bring back the troops home just like the cutoff of the funding can do? Is that what you were suggesting in your story?

One more thing, does a war resolution passed by Congress must be signed by the sitting president? I've always wondered what is the difference between a war resolution and a declaration of war on a nation-state, and why is declaring war no longer fashionable?

Dan

------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.

If they want to reconsider the war resolution, let them. I think it will be a healthy, eye opening process for the populace. Both they (and Glennon in his analysis) are reaching. This would be an unprecedented event followed by a complex legislative and legal process, most likely ending at the Presidents desk. That is one of the reasons funding was cut off in Vietnam. Congress controls the purse strings. If Democrats want to use the direct approach and be honest about their intentions, then cut funding and sit down. That would of course be too difficult for Mr. Biden who has a history of dishonest behavior.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

The war the Congress declared in 2002 was won handily by 2004.

All the relevant UNSC resoultions have been enforced or are no longer operative

Iraq's WMD program(whatever it was)is no more

Iraq is no longer in "material or unacceptable breach" of any UN resolution

As the President himself said in March, 2003:

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.

Victory has been achieved. Iraq has been disarmed of WMD. Saddam Hussein no longer supports terrorism. Saddam Hussein and his regime no longer opress the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein and his regime no longer do much of anything, as a matter of fact.

Sometime around 2004, Bush changed the mission to esatblishing a Switzerland on the Euphrates, which was never in the AUMF. Try as you might, there's not one word about ending Sunni-Shiite strife, establishing employment programs in Baghdad, assuming responsibility for the Iraqi utility services, mediating among the Shiite leadership(SCIRI, DAWA, Badr, etc...),etc...

Once Saddam was captured, he and the rest of the deck of cards should have been promptly executed. Bush should have declared victory, perhaps left forces by the borders to guard against Iranian and Syrian aggression and to protect the oil fields, and let the Iraqis figure things out themselves. He should have then focused on building the military and expanding it to be able to meet the challeng posed by Iran, Syria and the rest of the Dar al Islam. The GOP would still have the Congress, and have already wrapped up 2008.

Instead, he pulled the old bait-and-switch. He determined that it was the mission of the US to create and nurture an entirely new nation, something he explicitly foreswore on the campaign trail in 2000. Something that even under the best of circumstances would take decades and under Iraqi circumstances is most likely impossible. IOW, he gave the military a mission it could not achieve and to make things worse, ordered it to do it on the cheap, vastly undermanned and under supplied, so that whatever meager chance it did have of success went out the window.

He's had the US military in a passive, reactive, defensive posture for 3 years, sitting back and getting blown up day after day on the same convoy routes by the same IEDs because he's decided we need to stay there until Iraq becomes something that no Arab country has achieved in all of recorded human history.

Now, the Iranians have gotten us bogged down into a situation where we're unable to do anything abut them while we have our hands full with a conflict in Iraq that Iran is stoking both sides of. They've basically recreated the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s, only this time, we're both Iran and Iraq and Iran is us. They've repeated their playbook from 1980s Lebanon and it's working brilliantly. Every day we're tied down in Iraq is good day for Iran.

And based on the Iraq War, I feel confident in saying the the US will not be involved in another major war for at least 15 years. The Iraq experience, much like the Vietnam experience, will take that long to recover from. So, basically, the Iranians are home free. Unless Ehud Olmert grows a pair, which is highly unlikely.

The best thing for the US to do is to declare victory, leave the Sunnis and Shiites to fight it out, arm both sides, but favor the Shiites, maybe leave some SpecOps to neutralize HVTS and other terrorists as they present themselves, and move on to other, more important thinigs, like the Iranian nuclear program, Al Qaeda, and the continuing Islamic threat. A 1400 year battle over who should succeed Muhammad is none of our business. Who controls some slum in Baghdad is none of our business.

Much like other wars and ethnic conflicts, there will be ethnic cleansing and separation of populations and groups, and eventually, as in Lebanon, the sides will exhaust themselves. The exodus of and the shrinking of the Sunni population in Baghdad and the internal migration to Anbar Province are examples of this in action. The sooner it comes to a conclusion, the better. If other countries want to join in, fine. As long as they're all focused on Iraq and who's winning, Sunni or SHiite, they're not focused on the US and killing Americans.

Unfortunately, if Bush were to do that it would be largely seen as admitting defeat so he's boxed himself into a position where we have to stay there. Now he's going to go with a surge, but even that is going to be on the cheap. The Keane-Kagan plan explicitly said we need at least 30-50K(and even that is low, IMHO). All news reports say that Bush is going to go with 20K max and much fewer actual combat troops as opposed to support troops and the like.

It doesn't take much to see that this surge, like other previous attempts, will not succeed, certainly not on the level that Bush is hoping for. One good by-product will be that the failure of the surge will discredit Sen McCain and end his hopes of becoming president. Bush is a poker player, and he's about to go all in with the future of the GOP and the Conservative movement in the middle of the table. I hope the River turns up aces, because if it doesn't, the next 40 years will largely resemble the 40 years post 1968, and that won't be pretty from a conservative or republican point of view.

All that said, I hope I'm wrong. But if Biden and Warner can get enough Senators to declare the AUMF no longer operative, good for them.

The Congress never voted to approve of the military creating Switzerland in Mesopotamia. Supporting removing the regime of Saddam Hussein, ending his support for terrorism and his WMD programs and violation of UN resolutions is completely separate from nation building, which W explicitly rejected in 2000.

If he decided on nation building he should have been more open and specific about what it would entail and should have also asked for adequate forces to achieve it. Anyone could have told you that 150,000 troops is woefully inadequate.

As for Biden crying after Bush declared victory? Who care what Biden does? BlackHawkDown retreat? Declaring victory after deposing Saddam's regime, executing Saddam and the regime's leaders, ending its WMD threat and support for terrorists, and letting Iraqis settle their own scores and work out their own MO is a far cry from bailing from Mogadishu after having US Rangers dragged through the streets and Aidid still in power. It's not even remotely similar.

What is winning to you? Will 15-20,000 more troops achieve victory? If it's established that to achieve Bush's current definition of victory at least 100-200,000 troops are needed, do you support raising them? What would be your scenario under which Bush could declare victory? What would constitute V-I day? Is it worth it to sacrifice the conservative movement, the republican party and US security on the altar of Iraqi democracy?

By the way, conservatives and war supporters like North, Peters, and others have come out against the surge. Even Kagan and Keane have said that the surge needs to be vastly greater and longer than what Bush is likely to order. And even then it's no panacea.