I have been skeptical of wars that are conducted without an official congressional declaration of war as the Constitution requires. A congressional authorization is no substitute for an official declaration.
Part of what has gone wrong in both Iraq and Afghanistan is directly related to relying on congressional authorizations instead of declarations. The constitutional war declaration powers, granted only to the Congress, presume wars will be declared only to defend America and its citizenry from foreign enemies, not for "nation building," "creating democracies abroad" or "enlightening foreign countries on American standards of human rights."
For this reason the Iraq war never qualified for an official declaration. Afghanistan is a slightly different matter and would likely have qualified.
The best part of President Barack Obama's speech at West Point outlining his decision to "surge" 30,000 troops on an accelerated timetable and then to start bringing them home in 18 months, finishing the job in three years, was his comment on why we are there.
He tied the war eloquently to the Sept. 11 attack on America in a way that actually made sense and had credibility. He tied it directly and exclusively to that in a way that could qualify his "surge" for an official declaration of war, not on Afghanistan itself, of course, but on that group of outlaw Taliban thugs who operate within that failed state.
It may be too late for an official declaration, but he, at least, gave a constitutional rationale for his "surge." Of course, since we have already been wallowing in Afghanistan for eight years, and things have seriously deteriorated recently, it is appropriate to finally set a timeline. Since we are not warring with Afghanistan but rather a subgroup operating there, the timeline is an important message to the Afghan army and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, as well as to our generals and the American citizenry.
When Obama says there will be no blank check or open-ended commitment, he is not only making sense but also being honest with the American people. A war that is now destined to last 11 years will have gone on more than long enough. In three more years, if success hasn't been achieved, there will be very little support left from the American people.
If 100,000 troops and an outstanding general like Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, can't take care of the Afghan Taliban in the next three years, then it just won't ever get done, and we will, in that case, have another Vietnam on our hands.
Worrying about whether the Taliban is going to take comfort in a timeline when we are escalating the troops by 50 percent (and in a hurry) is silly. Republicans who are already screaming about the fixed timetable, like Sen. John McCain, are just trying to make political points. Democrats who will be screaming about the addition of 30,000 new troops are not acknowledging the success of Gen. David Petraeus, now commander, U.S. Central Command, with his "surge" in a different theater, or the hazards of a hasty withdrawal (regardless of how many mistakes got us into our current predicament or whether we should have gone there in the first place).
The ideas that the Republicans and Democrats are advancing that we should significantly escalate on an open-ended basis or just get out immediately are ridiculous. I am one Republican who is willing to admit Obama's Afghan war plan makes sense, even if his domestic agenda doesn't.
Merrill Cook represented Utah as a Republican in Congress from 1997 to 2001. He is a businessman, consultant and owner of Cook Associates, Inc.
By Merrill Cook
I have been skeptical of wars that are conducted without an official congressional declaration of war as the Constitution requires. A congressional authorization is no substitute for an official declaration.
Part of what has gone wrong in both Iraq and Afghanistan is directly related to relying on congressional authorizations instead of declarations. The constitutional war declaration powers, granted only to the Congress, presume wars will be declared only to defend America and its citizenry from foreign enemies, not for "nation building," "creating democracies abroad" or "enlightening foreign countries on American standards of human rights."
For this reason the Iraq war never qualified for an official declaration. Afghanistan is a slightly different matter and would likely have qualified.
The best part of President Barack Obama's speech at West Point outlining his decision to "surge" 30,000 troops on an accelerated timetable and then to start bringing them home in 18 months, finishing the job in three years, was his comment on why we are there.
He tied the war eloquently to the Sept. 11 attack on America in a way that actually made sense and had credibility. He tied it directly and exclusively to that in a way that could qualify his "surge" for an official declaration of war, not on Afghanistan itself, of course, but on that group of outlaw Taliban thugs who operate within that failed state.
It may be too late for an official declaration, but he, at least, gave a constitutional rationale for his "surge." Of course, since we have already been wallowing in Afghanistan for eight years, and things have seriously deteriorated recently, it is appropriate to finally set a timeline. Since we are not warring with Afghanistan but rather a subgroup operating there, the timeline is an important message to the Afghan army and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, as well as to our generals and the American citizenry.
When Obama says there will be no blank check or open-ended commitment, he is not only making sense but also being honest with the American people. A war that is now destined to last 11 years will have gone on more than long enough. In three more years, if success hasn't been achieved, there will be very little support left from the American people.
If 100,000 troops and an outstanding general like Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, can't take care of the Afghan Taliban in the next three years, then it just won't ever get done, and we will, in that case, have another Vietnam on our hands.
Worrying about whether the Taliban is going to take comfort in a timeline when we are escalating the troops by 50 percent (and in a hurry) is silly. Republicans who are already screaming about the fixed timetable, like Sen. John McCain, are just trying to make political points. Democrats who will be screaming about the addition of 30,000 new troops are not acknowledging the success of Gen. David Petraeus, now commander, U.S. Central Command, with his "surge" in a different theater, or the hazards of a hasty withdrawal (regardless of how many mistakes got us into our current predicament or whether we should have gone there in the first place).
The ideas that the Republicans and Democrats are advancing that we should significantly escalate on an open-ended basis or just get out immediately are ridiculous. I am one Republican who is willing to admit Obama's Afghan war plan makes sense, even if his domestic agenda doesn't.
Merrill Cook represented Utah as a Republican in Congress from 1997 to 2001. He is a businessman, consultant and owner of Cook Associates, Inc.
Read more >>
I have been skeptical of wars that are conducted without an official congressional declaration of war as the Constitution requires. A congressional authorization is no substitute for an official declaration.
Part of what has gone wrong in both Iraq and Afghanistan is directly related to relying on congressional authorizations instead of declarations. The constitutional war declaration powers, granted only to the Congress, presume wars will be declared only to defend America and its citizenry from foreign enemies, not for "nation building," "creating democracies abroad" or "enlightening foreign countries on American standards of human rights."
For this reason the Iraq war never qualified for an official declaration. Afghanistan is a slightly different matter and would likely have qualified.
The best part of President Barack Obama's speech at West Point outlining his decision to "surge" 30,000 troops on an accelerated timetable and then to start bringing them home in 18 months, finishing the job in three years, was his comment on why we are there.
He tied the war eloquently to the Sept. 11 attack on America in a way that actually made sense and had credibility. He tied it directly and exclusively to that in a way that could qualify his "surge" for an official declaration of war, not on Afghanistan itself, of course, but on that group of outlaw Taliban thugs who operate within that failed state.
It may be too late for an official declaration, but he, at least, gave a constitutional rationale for his "surge." Of course, since we have already been wallowing in Afghanistan for eight years, and things have seriously deteriorated recently, it is appropriate to finally set a timeline. Since we are not warring with Afghanistan but rather a subgroup operating there, the timeline is an important message to the Afghan army and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, as well as to our generals and the American citizenry.
When Obama says there will be no blank check or open-ended commitment, he is not only making sense but also being honest with the American people. A war that is now destined to last 11 years will have gone on more than long enough. In three more years, if success hasn't been achieved, there will be very little support left from the American people.
If 100,000 troops and an outstanding general like Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, can't take care of the Afghan Taliban in the next three years, then it just won't ever get done, and we will, in that case, have another Vietnam on our hands.
Worrying about whether the Taliban is going to take comfort in a timeline when we are escalating the troops by 50 percent (and in a hurry) is silly. Republicans who are already screaming about the fixed timetable, like Sen. John McCain, are just trying to make political points. Democrats who will be screaming about the addition of 30,000 new troops are not acknowledging the success of Gen. David Petraeus, now commander, U.S. Central Command, with his "surge" in a different theater, or the hazards of a hasty withdrawal (regardless of how many mistakes got us into our current predicament or whether we should have gone there in the first place).
The ideas that the Republicans and Democrats are advancing that we should significantly escalate on an open-ended basis or just get out immediately are ridiculous. I am one Republican who is willing to admit Obama's Afghan war plan makes sense, even if his domestic agenda doesn't.
Merrill Cook represented Utah as a Republican in Congress from 1997 to 2001. He is a businessman, consultant and owner of Cook Associates, Inc.
0 comments:
Post a Comment