New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

America’s founding fathers created a Constitution meant to govern the country for the hundreds of years that would follow. They incorporated contingency plans for many situations; planning for times of war, peace, economic depression, etc. The Bush Administration, however, regards the ages-old document as “just a goddamned scrap of paper.” The Constitution is far more than the administration acknoweldges. Bush’s attitude about the document alone is not the problem; it’s the way he’s acting upon it. The Constitution as written was meant to be interpreted by the courts, not by the president. The Iraq War, however, has provided Mr. Bush with an exemplary opportunity to seize powers for the executive.

In effect, Mr. Bush is planning on racking up an extraordinary bill in Iraq and presenting it to Congress without their prior commitment. Recent events highlight the extent to which Mr. Bush is willing to go to achieve what the President claims is, “a better chance for success” in Iraq. Bush’s speech Wednesday night called for a commitment of 20,000 troops but made no mention of the appropriations to fund Bush’s new plan. After all, Congress is the only governmental agency that posesses the “power of the purse.” Still, Bush forged on, claiming that enough money is in governmental coffers to begin his plan. By the time extra troops are on the ground, “it will be too late for Congress to stop them.”

Apparently Bush wasn’t confident enough in his earlier attempt to garner financing from an unfriendly Congress. In an interview Sunday night with 60 Minutes, Bush noted that he would send troops to Iraq regardless of what Congress’ wishes were. Bush was asked if he had the authority to send troops to Iraq regardless of Congress’ wishes. His reply was an ugly affront to the principles of the Constitution, “I think I’ve got, in this situation I do, yeah. I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.”

Congress does have the right to limit funding for Bush’s project. The Center for American Progress mentions several key examples of funding revocations, including personnel ceilings in Vietnam and Lebanon. Can it be done? With an increasingly uncooperative White House, Congress seems not to stand a chance. Unfortunately, the tide of public opinion will sway to the President on this issue. If more troops are indeed sent to Iraq without congressional approval, limiting funding would seem almost patriotic.

Some Congressmen haven’t given up the fight. This week, Ted Kennedy announced legislation demanding accountability for the new Iraq policy. Think Progress obtained key parts of Kennedy’s legislation and a summary from his office.

The legislation claims the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops into the Iraq civil war. It says that no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces.

Think Progress » Kennedy Introduces Bill Requiring Congressional Approval For Iraq Escalation

Kennedy’s begs an important question: should such limitations of presidential power be necessary to begin with? The Constitution clearly delineated the roles of every branch of government. The Bush Administration seems to have rearranged the tree of government and allowed the executive to obtain an exorbitant amount of power. A New York Times editorial entitled “Picking Up the Pieces” highlights Bush’s problem, claiming “It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war.” The editorial, however, left out the most crucial disconnect of all: the relationship between Mr. Bush and the Constitution.

Popularity: 29% [?]

———
‘The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans’

As 20,000 more US troops head for Iraq, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, the only correspondent reporting regularly from behind the country’s sectarian battle lines, reveals how the Sunni insurgency has changed

Saturday January 13, 2007
The Guardian

One morning a few weeks ago I sat in a car talking to Rami, a thick-necked former Republican Guard commando who now procures arms for his fellow Sunni insurgents.
Rami was explaining how the insurgency had changed since the first heady days after the US invasion. “I used to attack the Americans when that was the jihad. Now there is no jihad. Go around and see in Adhamiya [the notorious Sunni insurgent area] - all the commanders are sitting sipping coffee; it’s only the young kids that are fighting now, and they are not fighting Americans any more, they are just killing Shia. There are kids carrying two guns each and they roam the streets looking for their prey. They will kill for anything, for a gun, for a car and all can be dressed up as jihad.”
Read the rest of the article here-

“The Jihad Now.” Guardian.co.uk. Jan 13th, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1989397,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1. (01/13/07).
————-

This article furthers my prediction that the war in Iraq will continue to intensify between the Shiites and the Sunni’s as American soldiers find themselves caught in the middle. The violence in Iraq may have initially been directed at American forces; now it is evident that it is a war between two sects of one religion. As the tensions in Iraq grow, it will become more obvious to foreign observers, American military leaders, as well as politicians that the Sunni world is moving ever so slowly towards war with the Shiites. Many note that fighting between the two sects has gone on for hundreds of years, but never has so much been at stake. One aspect of the situation that is particularly troublesome is the proliferation of nuclear weapons by states that will be involved in the future conflict, first Iran, and then soon after Saudi Arabia. The threat of a nuclear-armed Iran does not only concern Israel and the United States, but also Shia nations. Once Iran achieves a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will be soon to follow. It is a safe bet that the royal family is investing in nuclear arms research already. Many are worried that any possible strike on Iran will aggravate tensions in the region, while many Muslims will be angry, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt will be willing to turn a blind eye towards any Israeli action. They will do little than publicly condemn possible air strikes. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have nothing to fear from Israel. Israel does not represent a real threat to them, as they have no interests in dominating the region. On the other hand the modern Islamic Republic of Iran was founded with the interest of not only destroying Israel, but also becoming the dominant power in the region through political, military, and economic means. Saudi Arabia cannot and never will allow this to happen, they are willing to go to war to prevent it.

Popularity: 19% [?]

If the United States fails to stop the fighting in Iraq, the result will be a regional war between the Sunni and the Shiite states. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and possibly Egypt will fight to keep the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons or from exerting a greater sphere of influence over the region. The Saudis do not want majority rule in Iraq—that would mean Shiite control. A Shiite-controlled government will turn Iraq into a satellite state for Iran, which would further spread the Iranian sphere of influence.

If Iraq is not brought under control, a regional middle eastern war will erupt.  At the very least, it would stifle the world wide economy. Att worst, it would spawn the fourth world war. If the Saudi’s and Iranians enter into war the population in Iraq will be caught in the middle, leading to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of deaths. Israeli security will most certainly be threatened which will force Israel to act against either Iran or Syria. The mutual defense agreement between Iran and Syria will prompt the mobilization of Hezbollah and will propagate an invasion by Israel into Lebanon, which will lead to a bloody street-by-street war. If such an event occurs, the presence of Iranian and Syrian military advisors as well as complex weapons systems will lead to an Israeli response upon targets in Iran and Syria. By now the entire Middle East will be destabilized and oil prices will have skyrocketed.

The international community’s relationship with Russia will also be strained as they continue (official or unofficial) to support of Iran. As oil prices sore in the middle east, much of Europe will come to rely even more heavily on Russia for natural gas and oil supplies which will further increase the Russian monopoly over the energy needs of eastern and even western Europe. The disruptions in the Middle East will mean that both America and Chinese oil supplies will be squeezed and both nations economies will loose momentum. On the other side of the world a maniac, who has aligned himself with Iran, controls the only major oil-producing nation in Latin America.

The more American’s view the world they must see the number of enemies all around them. The Venezuelans, Iranians, Syrians, and even the Russians hope to see the demise of the United States. American’s withdrawing from Iraq will be the spark that ignites the third world war, if the nation is fearful of loosing a few thousand lives to correct the course in Iraq, then they should be horrified of the millions that will be lost because of the consequences of abandoning it.

Popularity: 16% [?]