WalkingThinkTank.com
ideas that go places
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2007
It’s safe to say that Barack Obama would not be running for
president if he had not opposed the authorization of force in
October 2002 and Hillary Clinton had not supported it. The
experience factor would loom too large if he could not make a
case that his judgment is superior.
But Obama has not been able to weave his critique of Hillary’s
Iraq vote into the broader narrative of his campaign – that he
is a different kind of politician who can unite the country.
Obama’s challenge is to show he possesses the leadership
capacity to move the nation forward while simultaneously
exposing Hillary’s greatest vulnerability. His opportunity is to
propose legislation that seeks to ensure the nation never again
goes to war the way we did in 2003 - a cause that should unite
both war supporters and war opponents,.
This is our duty to our troops and their families. For our
chances of military success are greatest when our political
leaders are united, and that unity of purpose can only come
from broad political agreement over both the need to threaten
force and the broad strategic means for carrying out such a
threat. It is the agreement over strategy – both diplomatic and
military – that was woefully lacking in our invasion of Iraq.
And as a result, we were left with a bitterly divided Congress, a
divided nation and a disastrous strategic plan.
Yesterday, I laid out the case for The Unity in Wartime Act of
2007. (Please read the whole thing.) It would provide for a
two-step process for authorizing war in order to maximize the
chances that lawmakers will debate the issues thoroughly and
that the president and Congress will be partners in readying
the nation for war. And to the extent possible, it will ensure
that we never again face a situation where members of
Congress who vote to authorize war later say they didn’t really
mean it.
The simple framework would first have Congress render its
judgment of support for or opposition to any proposed military
deployment of more than 20,000 troops for the purpose of
threatening offensive operations, but such a vote shall not
constitute an authorization of force. The authorization of force
will require a separate vote.
The first vote, in effect, says that we mean business. The
second vote says that war is necessary and the nation is ready
to begin carrying out its threat of force at the president’s
discretion.
This framework wouldn’t usurp any constitutional prerogatives
of the president. Votes on large-scale deployments to threaten
force would not be binding and could come after the fact, if
troops are deployed when Congress is in recess, for example.
Nor would this framework encumber a future Congress.
Rather, the point is for this Congress to translate its experience
into firm principles that will guide future decisions to go to war,
which have been all too haphazard in the past.
As I wrote yesterday, “Members of Congress – both those who
support the war in Iraq and those calling to bring the troops
home – should all understand that the nation is paying a great
price because the premature debate over authorizing force
produced a fragile consensus that has become a deep fracture.
Because they have learned from hard-won experience, they
owe it to the men and women of our military to make this
lesson indelible, and out of this dark chapter in our nation’s
history to find shared principles that will light a path for a
future Congress to travel in their hour of uncertainty.”
what do you think?
president if he had not opposed the authorization of force in
October 2002 and Hillary Clinton had not supported it. The
experience factor would loom too large if he could not make a
case that his judgment is superior.
But Obama has not been able to weave his critique of Hillary’s
Iraq vote into the broader narrative of his campaign – that he
is a different kind of politician who can unite the country.
Obama’s challenge is to show he possesses the leadership
capacity to move the nation forward while simultaneously
exposing Hillary’s greatest vulnerability. His opportunity is to
propose legislation that seeks to ensure the nation never again
goes to war the way we did in 2003 - a cause that should unite
both war supporters and war opponents,.
This is our duty to our troops and their families. For our
chances of military success are greatest when our political
leaders are united, and that unity of purpose can only come
from broad political agreement over both the need to threaten
force and the broad strategic means for carrying out such a
threat. It is the agreement over strategy – both diplomatic and
military – that was woefully lacking in our invasion of Iraq.
And as a result, we were left with a bitterly divided Congress, a
divided nation and a disastrous strategic plan.
Yesterday, I laid out the case for The Unity in Wartime Act of
2007. (Please read the whole thing.) It would provide for a
two-step process for authorizing war in order to maximize the
chances that lawmakers will debate the issues thoroughly and
that the president and Congress will be partners in readying
the nation for war. And to the extent possible, it will ensure
that we never again face a situation where members of
Congress who vote to authorize war later say they didn’t really
mean it.
The simple framework would first have Congress render its
judgment of support for or opposition to any proposed military
deployment of more than 20,000 troops for the purpose of
threatening offensive operations, but such a vote shall not
constitute an authorization of force. The authorization of force
will require a separate vote.
The first vote, in effect, says that we mean business. The
second vote says that war is necessary and the nation is ready
to begin carrying out its threat of force at the president’s
discretion.
This framework wouldn’t usurp any constitutional prerogatives
of the president. Votes on large-scale deployments to threaten
force would not be binding and could come after the fact, if
troops are deployed when Congress is in recess, for example.
Nor would this framework encumber a future Congress.
Rather, the point is for this Congress to translate its experience
into firm principles that will guide future decisions to go to war,
which have been all too haphazard in the past.
As I wrote yesterday, “Members of Congress – both those who
support the war in Iraq and those calling to bring the troops
home – should all understand that the nation is paying a great
price because the premature debate over authorizing force
produced a fragile consensus that has become a deep fracture.
Because they have learned from hard-won experience, they
owe it to the men and women of our military to make this
lesson indelible, and out of this dark chapter in our nation’s
history to find shared principles that will light a path for a
future Congress to travel in their hour of uncertainty.”
what do you think?
ABOUT THIS SITE
WalkingThinkTank.com
an independent's search
for fairness, responsibility
and common sense
e-mail
WalkingThinkTank.com
an independent's search
for fairness, responsibility
and common sense