« God and Sports | Main | Point of Order »

February 05, 2007

Preemptive Action I Can Support

It would appear that the Senate is not going to pass even a nonbinding resolution on Iraq, because the Republicans refuse to do anything to reduce President Bush's authority (Democratic version)/because the Democrats won't permit an alternate resolution to come to the Senate floor for a vote (Republican version).

While I think it's a shame that Congress doesn't bring a binding resolution to the floor, even thought it certainly couldn't get a veto-proof level of support, there is some justice to the position of those who argue that 435 congresscritters shouldn't try to take away the executive's constitutionally-granted powers as Command in Chief of the armed forces. The surge is going to happen, even if the Democratic majority were to ram through a resolution to cut funding for the troops in Iraq, because the President would veto such a bill. The best Congress can do at this juncture as regards Iraq is to refuse to fund the war to the level the President resuests, forcing a drawdown no sooner than later this year. Even that isn't going to happen, because the Democrats fear being demagogued for not supporting the troops (and rightfully so, as the Republicans certainly would make such a claim).

There is something Congress can do that would at least help to make sure that the situation in the Middle East doesn't get any worse on our account: deny the President the authority to make war on Iran. I am not as certain as many on the left that the President is, in fact, preparing for such a war, but I am quite favorably disposed to making sure that it doesn't happen regardless of the odds.

There are legitimate reasons to go to war with Iran. They are aiding those who kill our forces in Iraq, possibility even directly intervening in the conflict. If the latter is true, their is a clear casus belli.

Going to war requires more than a legitimate reason for doing so, however. Iran may be the most notorious among those who are aiding the insurgent in Iraq, but they are far from alone. Syria and Saudi Arabia alike are suspected of providing men and materiel to the insurgency, and it's quite possible that many other majority-Sunni nations will or are doing so in an attempt to aid their co-religionists in Iraq. While there may be some people who favor going to war with anyone who aids our enemies, there are practical limits to how much more our armed forces can do short of general mobilization or the use of nuclear weapons (and let's all pray nobody gets crazy enough to break those out).

Given our clear inability to provide security in Iraq and Afghanistan, what makes anyone think we would suddenly be better off if we went to war with Iran? Even assuming we didn't attempt to invade and occupy Iran, open was with Iran would grant them carte blanche to provide the Iraqi insurgency with as many weapons and personnel as they could slip across the long Iran-Iraq border. Then there's the possibility Iran might decide to launch terror strikes here in the United States/. Their attack on the Israeli embassy in Argentina demonstrates their ability to project force. Do we really want to give them a reason to do so in the continental United States? What would we hope to gain?

Doubling down on our bets in the Middle East is a recipe for disaster. If we want to stabilize Iraq, our best bet is probably to leave, since without our presence there the various factions struggling for control will be free to work out their differences. It will be bloody, but they'll do it, particularly as many of the outside support currently flowing to the insurgents will dry up once it can no longer be used against the United States. I'm not advocating that, but it has a better chance of success than further stirring up the hornet's next by bringing Iran fully into the war.

Congress may be politically constrained from ending the war in Iraq, but it has the power to prevent a war in Iran. They would be wise to act now to do so.