OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush erodes civilian military command
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ben White:
- Bush's isolation on Iraq War highlights need for withdrawal (November 26, 2007)
- Biden, Kucinich true Oval Office material (November 12, 2007)
- Liberal arts merit alumni attention (October 29, 2007)
- Child gun access allows shootings (October 15, 2007)
- Myanmar protests mandate US action (October 1, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Democrats wimp out, change little (October 10, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- Bush opposition needs backbone (October 31, 2006)
- 15-month tours won't save Bush (April 13, 2007)
- Adult diapers for Democrats only (October 31, 2006)
by Ben White
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
When Democrats took over control of both bodies of Congress last November, they promised change and claimed a mandate from the American public that things were not going well under the domination of a Republican administration and Congress. While they have not done much since they took over the majority in both the House and the Senate, things have begun to change. Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted, by a slim margin, for a definite date of troop pullout from the war in Iraq.
The New York Times referred to this referendum as "the most forceful challenge yet to President Bush's war policy." Yet, nothing is going to change. President Bush's unilateralism extends beyond the international front and straight into domestic politics; he will, without a doubt, veto this bill, dismissing not only the sentiments of the people he governs, but those who govern with him. Congress has a responsibility to act as a check in our revered Madisonian tradition of liberalism and republicanism.
Whether or not you agree with the substance of this bill, it is troubling that our president will neglect its message. At this point, even he has acknowledged that his war is not going according to plan, and the frustration of the American people is clear. As the antiwar sentiment grows, Mr. Bush must, at some point, concede something. It is perfectly acceptable for a president, at times, to ignore the unclear messages that come from a fickle public opinion. However, when polls of the American public display not only what thousands of protestors are saying, but what the American legislative branch is voting for as well, something is wrong.
What Mr. Bush should and will be commended for is his strong determination in the face of adversity. A president who responds and adapts to every voice around him is weak and would be bad for the country. The problem does not lie in his inability to listen, but in his penchant for selective listening. Mr. George W. Bush has been our president for over six years, and in that time he has vetoed one — yes, just one — bill. The bill in question was introduced in the House last summer and labeled the "Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005." While I strongly disagree with the values that led him to shoot down that legislation, he has a vision for this country and it includes certain morals that stand opposed to the use of stem cells for research purposes. He was perfectly justified in issuing that veto.
The veto that he is currently threatening, and that he unquestionably will go through with, is a different story. It is not just a vision of this country's morality that he is dealing with. It is simple: Americans are dying in a war-gone-wrong, the American public, for the most part, wants to see a beginning of the end to the violence, and those in charge of making this country's laws now want to see that timetable as well. Mr. Bush, though, will not listen and will issue his second presidential veto.
His rationale? That Democrats had "voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq." Before addressing the utter hypocrisy of that statement, it should be mentioned that a major facet of the American tradition is that there is civilian control over our military. We instituted this notion with the idea that it is not the judgment of our military commanders on the ground that shape wartime policy. Was it not President Bush that allowed Donald Rumsfeld, the then-Secretary of Defense, to make judgment calls on how to run this war? By definition, the Secretary of Defense is a civilian; in fact, the position cannot be held by anyone who has even been in the military within the past 10 years. If Mr. Bush is dismissing the ideas of the House because they are not "military commanders," why didn't he act to dismiss ex-Secretary Rumsfeld's strategy of sending far fewer troops than needed into Iraq — a strategy that has ultimately led to the present chaos in the Middle East?
The answer is that Mr. Bush listens to whom he wants to listen, namely, Republicans, and throws out the ideas of others, namely, Democrats. He has presided over a unified Republican congress for the vast majority of his presidency, and has thus vetoed just one bill; I wonder what might happen over the next year and a half, under total Democratic congressional control.
Ben White (bwhite2@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in political science and sociology.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 8:06am):
Bush will veto money and support for the troops to prolong the "Police War of the Iraqi Civil War Occupation on Terror and Insurgency for Democracy" long enough for it to be the next president's problem.
If we pull out now, in 1.5 years, or in 5 years, it's going to be a mess. There WILL be a vacuum WHENEVER we leave.
How long does it take to print up another "Mission Accomplished" banner anyway?
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 8:58am):
Doesn't the USA still have troops in Germany and Japan? And Korea? And the Balkans?
Maybe we should set a similar deadline for leaving Iraq? Say 30 or 40 years?
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 12:09pm):
This is what I'd like to see in a veto message. It's too bad that there's no chance of this happening but I've pretty much given up on Bush. Disappointing.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2545
PRESIDENT BUSH: My fellow Americans, in this folder on my desk is legislation that would pull our troops out of Iraq by March 2008, leaving that budding democracy to be ruled under Sharia law which treats goats better than it treats women, leaving this cradle of freedom in the care of men who have made slaughtering civilians an article of faith, and putting the credibility of the United States on a par with the reputation of the United Nations.
***
The easiest thing in the world would be for me to sign the retreat bill and join the popular chorus. But I have seen the face of evil, and I know that the United States of America has been chosen to stand in the breech at this historic moment. We're not only standing against wickedness, but we're marching toward a better future. We can clearly see the day when an area of the world cloaked for centuries in ignorance and hatred will finally breathe the quickening air of freedom, liberty and hope.
***
I call on Congress tonight to get back to work and provide funding for the troops. Stop crafting sound bites and talking points. Stop giving interviews for a week or two. Send me a bill that smells like victory, without trying to micromanage the war or boost your own reelection prospects. Set aside your own desires and career, and simply do the right thing. History will celebrate your courage.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 12:43pm):
12:09, do you ever think about what you write, seriously? The best case scenario is that Iraq will someday look like the horrible situation in Israel and Palestine. Iraq, hopefully, will devolve into sectarian states that only battle occasionally along the boundary lines.
Your dream of Iraq someday looking like Cleveland is absurd. Leave now painfully, or leave later painfully. Your choice, champ (chump).
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 3:56pm):
"The best case scenario is that Iraq will someday look like the horrible situation in Israel and Palestine."
Or Northern Ireland. Or the Balkans. There were those who said Japan ,ruled by tyrants forever, would never be a peaceful democracy. Some didn't think there was much chance for Germany either. But yeah, best to just give up forever on the idea of peace and democracy in the middle east.
I'm actually quite isolationist - I wish we'd left Saddam in Kuwait (and then Saudi Arabia next I'm sure). I just worry that surrender at this point will not lead to a peaceful future, it will just encourage the USA's enemies.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 6:02pm):
12:43 right after VJ day:
Your dream of Japan someday looking like Cleveland is absurd. Leave now painfully, or leave later painfully.
(Of course we were actually trying to win that war - even the Republicans laboring under the boot of the tyrant Roosevelt)
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 7:27pm):
"I just worry that surrender at this point will not lead to a peaceful future, it will just encourage the USA's enemies."
And you don't think staying is making more enemies? Logic?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
