Use of Uniformed Military as Political Props?

In defense of Asherman, Republicans (and many Democrats) have been saying this from the very beginning. The Joint Resolution for the Authorization of Force in Iraq listed these violations as some of the facts justifying the war.

Ah, c'mon. That was a shmorgas-board in which each and every reason that could possibly be thought of was added on to the list.

It has and had nothing to do with the actual reasons we went to war. It certainly wasn't the selling point put forth by anyone at the time.

Cycloptichorn

Shmorgasbord or not, Advocate was wrong to insinuate that the argument is new.

The focus on this argument is new. In fact, iirc, it wasn't even the original plan to replace Saddam with a Democracy, but instead a regional tribal council. That got scrapped early on when the WMD didn't turn up, and we needed a reason to actually be there.

It's a case of CYA, yaknow? List out each and every possible argument so that later you can fall back on whatever it takes; any shifting position is billed as 'focusing on a different segment of the original argument.'

Cycloptichorn

Mea culpa! Thomas, I think you would admit that the invasion was sold on the basis of a supposed threat to us by Saddam's WMD. That is why the Bush administration took such great umbrage at Joe Wilson's editorial in the NYT's.

It still comes back to the use of uniformed military personal as a political photo backdrop when Bush made his 'speech'.

There was no valid non-political reason for those uniformed military officials to be there for his speech. Bush can give all the speeches he wants but when he decorates the stage with military personnel or a banner that states "Mission Accomplished" those adornments are political. The same is true when a politician surrounds himself with kids to talk about child molestation or firefighters to talk about 9/11. It is a cheap ploy. It is unfortunate that it works for so many.

Moral support for those you agree with is a large part in forming what happens. Place all of your support behind what someone does and it will make a big difference in the outcome.

You can't tell a child its stupid all its life and then when it fails blame the child. You had a part in forming the mental aspects that the child would work under and you set that child up for failure.

You remember incorrectly. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 declared it official US policy to remove Saddam's regime in Iraq and install a democracy in his place. Bush never changed this policy in order to install anything else. The stated justification for regime change was Saddam's violation of UN resolutions and the mass murders he committed. The act passed the House 360:38 and the Senate unanimously. So the focus on this argument is old.


I have no argument with this. It was one of Bush's selling points for the war, and I dare you to find a post by me that ever denied that. But the other arguments had always been around, were always important factors in the decision for regime change, and were enshrined in law as important factors for this decision. Your allusion that this is a new argument is grossly misleading.

In fact, Churchill was elected as a Member of Parliament, and he became Prime Minister because a coalition of the elected members of Parliament agreed to form a government with Churchill as Prime Minister--which is not at all what happened in Germany. There were four elections to the Reichstag in less than a year. Having been defeated in his attempt to become President, Hitler decided that the National Socialists could provide him the leverage he needed in the Reichstag. However, the National Socialists could not attain a majority, and Hindenburg exercised his legal power as President to name other men to the post of Chancellor, until it finally became clear that no other party leader could hold the office. Even then, Hitler was only chancellor on a bare majority by forming a coalition with Franz von Papen (a failed chancellor) and the DNVP. Papen was himself a renegade from the Centre Party, and Hindenberg was only able to appoint him because he had the support of the DNVP. When he was replaced by General Schleicher, he worked with the DNVP to undermine Schleicher's government, and to force Hindenberg to appoint Hitler.

Even then, Hitler and the National Socialists did not have the power to set aside the Constitution, and to implement the government Hitler wanted. For that, they needed the excuse of the Reichstag fire, after which the left-wing parties were banned and habeas corpus was suspended. The National Socialist did better in the subsequent election, when no left-wing parties were represented, but they still did not attain a majority, only gaining about 44%, and continued to rely upon the DNVP coalition. But Hitler then made overtures to the Centre Party, von Papen's former party, and despite the warnings of influential members of that Party, they voted with the National Socialists and the DNVP to pass the Enabling Act with the necessary two-thirds majority (once again, assured because there were now no left-wing parties in the Reichstag), which allowed Hitler to legislate without reference to the Reichstag, and to implement extra-constitutional measures--for a period of four years. Hitler only really needed about a year, and the nation and all of its politics and its resources were his.

By contrast, although politically isolated after 1929, Churchill continued to be the unofficial head of a minority faction of the Tories which opposed Indian Home Rule, and which were to oppose Hitler and Chamberlain's Munich agreement. He was a duly elected member of Parliament in 1940, when Neville Chamberlain's government were finally forced to resign, he was available, and already a member of government, once again holding the portfolio as First Lord of Admiralty which he had first held before the Great War. When Chamberlain was obliged to resign on the even of the invasion of France, Lord Halifax would not form a government for King George VI, because he didn't feel he could govern from the House of Lords. Halifax and Chamberlain then recommended Churchill to the King, and we know this is true because the first thing Churchill did when he became Prime Minister was to send a letter to Chamberlain to thank him for his support. The King had asked Churchill to form a government "of all parties," which he did, and those parties accepted his government. No parties were banned, no midnight raids and arrests without right of habeas corpus were used, and no new elections were called simply because he had formed a "National Union" government. The terms of the English constitution were observed throughout, and the evidence that what you had was business as usual was the speed with which the English people dumped Churchill when the war was won. Whether one believes that the voters were tired of Churchill, and didn't trust the war leader in time of peace, or that the Tories could not stand on their own, especially given their record in the 1930s--the fact remains that he became Prime Minister in the normal constitutional process, and the voters turned him out a little more than two months after the European war had ended, and while the Pacific war still raged on.

To compare the political careers of Hitler and Churchill and to arrive at the conclusion you have offered is evidence either of naïveté, or historical ignorance.

On second thought, you're right Setanta. Hitler's first cabinet did not have a majority of MPs behind it.

My point, Thomas, was simply that Hitler acheived power without ever having been himself elected to office--and as i have noted, even though those who voted National Socialist knew they were in effect voting for Hitler, the National Socialists never achieved even a simple majority, even when they had eliminated the left-wing competition. Asherman's remarks referred to "the Germans," who cannot all be held responsible for Hitler having gained power.

Fair enough. And just as a side remark, it's Hindenburg, not Hindenberg.

Thanks, i can never remember, and usually get it wrong.

In any case, it is the Democratic Congress that is playing political games by tying up funding for the troops in hopes of imposing their will on the Commander-in-Chief. The Constitution was specific in making the Executive responsible for the conduct of war, and with good reason. Few wars are successful waged by a committee of hundreds with their own agendas. The Democrats want to regain the White House, and it seems their strategy for that is to obstruct and devalue every policy and action of this administration ... even if that degrades our military capability, and leads to more casualties.

The President gives a speech pleading for the Congress to put aside its partisan gamesmanship with a few military uniforms in the background. I suppose that is indeed "gaming". However, it is nothing compared to the Congressional attempt to make political "points" with the anti-war segment of the voting public. They know that their attempt of invading the Commander-in-Chief's prerogatives will be met with a firm veto, and that they have no chance of overturning that veto. The only results will be negative, and the pain will fall on the troops in combat. Conditioning and withholding needed funds from the military is almost the epitome if cynical politicking.

1) The constitution is also specific in making Congress responsible for funding the war -- or declining to fund it.

2) Given the constitution's checks-and-balances approach to warmaking, why do you see the burden of not politicking so asymmetrical? What makes you think it isn't the Republican President that is playing political games by forcing the troops into a prolonged, unwinnable war, in hopes of imposing his will on the delegates of "we, the people"?

Sooo, the reason for the speech with uniformed military was...?

And, the funding for our troops is being tied up by Dems in Congress.... How?

(Also, awaiting an answer from Asherman to Thomas' questions.)

... to shame the Senate into killing the bill?

are you suggesting that ANY politician of any party possesses a sense of shame?

Good point, Bear.

Fair questions Thomas.

1. The Congress does indeed hold the purse strings, and they could refuse to pass any funds at all for supporting it. They haven't done that because it would be political suicide in the upcoming Presidential election. To be fair many of the Democrats recognize the importance of this fight, but are drawn along by the left-wing of the Party. Doubtless there is less popular support for the effort today than there was in the immediate wake of 9/11. We Americans tend to be impatient, if you hadn't noticed. We want things nice and simple and wrapped up neatly in half an hour with a laugh track. Horrifying scenes of terrorist bombings are shown nightly on television to a public who like their violence bloodless. We value and count every one of our casualties, though in reality those casualties are remarkably light for the length and bitterness of the fighting.

Rather than taking what might be an effective, if short-sighted view, means of getting our troops removed from the Southwest Asia, this Congress wants it both ways. They want us out regardless of the effect that withdrawal would have on our future security. They want to make it appear that the Democratic Party is blameless for any past or future efforts that might be popularly regarded as "wrong". Hence, they pass a bill funding the military at minimal levels, but with conditions that are clearly not acceptable to the Commander-in-Chief. He vetos their bill, and then it is the administration they will claim who short-changed the troops.

2. Oh I expect politicking from both parties. The roles of the Executive as Commander-in-Chief is to avoid the kind of political games we are seeing today. As I said before, wars can not be successful managed by a committee of hundreds who have diverse agendas. The military to be effective has to have a single CNC. Congressional opposition to military operations conducted by the Executive are more common than not. Congress would really hated and wanted to stop the Mexican War, and if Congress had its way the Civil War would have been short and today the Confederate States would have been independent. Congress never liked the Spanish-American War. Congress would have shut down the Korean Conflict and Vietnam in a heartbeat, if they could legally have done it.

Is a conflict lasting four years "prolonged"? Some wars go on for centuries, now that might more readily called "prolonged". "Unwinable"? That remains to be seen. The enemy, the Radical Islamic Movement (RIM}, consists of perhaps ten or twenty thousand active combatants around the world. The number involved in trying to destroy the Iraqi government's ability to function is a fraction of that. The terrorists are supported and supplied by radicals inside Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Cut their supply lines, and increase the pressure and in the end they will die or fold up their tents and try their tactics somewhere else. The best way to end American involvement in Iraq is to support the Iraqi government as it staggers its way toward effective control of their country. If the terrorists can be driven out, then infrastructures like electricity and water can get back on line.

Finally, it bears saying again that we are NOT a pure democracy. The United States is a Constitutional Republic based upon representation of the People to three balanced elements of governmental structure.