Can Congress stop the wars?

[Why Syzygy]

“We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which has the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war. We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.”

Those were the emotional words of a 27-year-old John Kerry, dressed in green fatigues, Silver Star, and Purple Heart ribbons as he shocked the country with his antiwar testimony before a crowded Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1971. Kerry’s fiery thirty-minute condemnation of the war became instantly legendary for questioning the reasons our military was in Vietnam; revealing the fact that the nation had turned its back on veterans; and slamming President Nixon for refusing to pull out.

It was a definitive moment for the antiwar movement made possible because chairman William Fulbright called Kerry to testify. Thirty-eight years later, Senator Kerry now sits in Fulbright’s seat. Along with Rep. Howard Berman, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Kerry has the power to focus the national spotlight on a similar quagmire, the war in Afghanistan. And as the Obama administration just committed an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $775,000 per soldier every year, oversight hearings can’t come soon enough.

Congressional oversight has historically been essential to government accountability in wartime. It dates back to 1792, when the House used hearings to investigate the War Department for a military fiasco in Indian territory that left 600 soldiers dead. During the Civil War, a joint congressional committee forced the resignation of President Lincoln’s first Secretary of War by exposing corruption and mismanagement. In World War II, Senator Truman’s Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program held hundreds of hearings that eventually saved the country $15 billion (roughly $200 billion today). Senator Lyndon Johnson used oversight during the Korean War to question the efficiency and waste of military agencies. And the Fulbright Hearings were followed by decades of vigorous oversight hearings that included the Church committee investigations into CIA covert operations and intelligence gather, the joint committees that placed the Iran-contra affair under the microscope, and the hearings used to review US military operations in Kosovo.

~more at link
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/128141/who_will_rein_in_the_war_in_afghanistan/

[FLAprogressive]

1. Can they? Yes. Will they? Probably not.

[shadowknows69]

2. They could have stopped it already

Why start now?

[Mari333]

3. how many of them are in the pockets of big corporations

probably most of them including dems..
and they wont bite the hand that feeds them. war makes money for the fuckers. defense dept always gets its fucking money when it asks.
i dont trust most of them as far as i can spit.

[unhappycamper]

4. I'm amazed that we continue to pump more money into the occupations.

I'm also amazed that Gates asked for $86 billion dollars more for the occupations this year.

I'm amazed that the 2009 military budget is almost a trillion dollars, and nobody is paying attention.

I'm even more amazed that the discussion about the $355,000,000 F-22 Raptor is still going on.

I'm amazed that these guys still think the $239,000,000 F-35 Lightening is viable.

I was impressively amazed at the $5.3 billion cost (each) for the two Zumwalt destroyers we own.

I was amazed at the $6.8 billion the new USS G. H. W. Bush aircraft carrier cost (sans airplanes and people).

Even you will be amazed at the new $11+ billion dollars Ford-class aircraft carriers are going to cost.


The answer to your question is 'Yes'. Unfortunately, most of our congresscritters (both Democratic and Republican) have no spine.

[mmonk]

5. Currently the AUMF allows the executive branch dictatorial power

when it comes to war.

[Why Syzygy]

6. egads.

What should be done about that?

[mmonk]

7. Hopefully all the craziness will wind down.

Maybe one day, the Congress will quit abdicating its vested power.

[melm00se]

8. Congress

has 2 activities in war: declaring war and funding(Article I, section 8). They can not declare a cease fire or sue for peace. That power rests with the President as Commander in Chief (under Article II, section 2) and as the sole government entity that can sign treaties (also under Article II, section 2).

Will Congress cut off funding? If they want to commit political suicide, yes.

It might also draw an interesting Constitutional challenge. While Congress has the 2 abilities listed above, the Constitution clearly lists "defense" as a Constitutional imperative:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Court could pass down a ruling that clearly defines the matter of "common defense" which IMO would either significantly limit the ability of the country to react to threats or gut one or the other branch's role in war/defense.

This, as you can gather, is one of those areas that has never really been tested by the USSC and if it was it could really upset the apple cart. This reluctance to shake things up is one of the reasons that neither Congress or the Executive Branch have tested the War Powers Act in court. They might not like the (binding) outcome.

[LWolf]

9. They won't. nt

[dkofos]

10. Yes. But they won't. Too much money to be made.

[karynnj]

11. Kerry has already held a hearing on Afghanistan and it may signal an additional role

Although I agree with the OP article and think that the Senate and House need to step up the oversight needed, I think the committees could have additional value by looking at issues independently from the administration. In any administration, there will be a point where many many things become common wisdom of the group and no one rethinks them. If a committee can find a way to avoid being stuck in those kind of ruts, it could be act to non-contentiously challenge policy - acting to surface possible problems in strategy early enough to make minor changes before the problems become big or being the spark that causes the administration to change.

For the Afghanistan hearing, Kerry opted to have a roundtable hearing, like Fullbright once used - where the experts and Senators informally sit around a table and rather than formal rounds of questions, the chair moderates (which Kerry did very lightly encouraging people to question his statements of CW and the comments of others) focused discussions that can dig deeply into the situation. (link to video - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090205a.html )

From the earlier confirmation hearings, Kerry had at HRC's hearing spoken of the need to redefine the goals and the strategy in Afghanistan. It also seems from Biden's comments in Munich that Biden (and the Obama administration) is saying similar things - which given that they actually make the policy is more important. It would seem that the type of hearing Kerry had is the best way that he can contribute - as it could provide insight on options from different people. The fact that there was interaction between the different experts (and the Senators) created a situation where positions were tested, adjusted and strengthened. All in a low key, serious, but pleasant environment. Something like this is a non-contentious way to work with the administration - sometimes suggesting alternatives that the administration could take - sometimes identifying things going wrong. It does not preclude having hearings more like those mentioned in the OP.

[TBF]

12. This congress? I highly doubt it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't

put pressure on them.