So, the president will present and implement a new plan for Afghanistan before approval by Congress?

[bigtree]

I thought that autocratic exercise of our military forces ended with the exit of the Decider.

True, even though the president is going to present yet another 'plan' for the use of military force in Afghanistan, he really doesn't need to come to Congress for approval before deploying troops into Afghanistan. He can advantage his new presidency of the same unilateral, assumed, autocratic authority Bush used to commit troops to Iraq - deploying them and then pressuring Congress to pay for it. After all, the money that Congress reflexively forks over for these occupations is the only substantive lever they have to control the CIC.

Sure, Congress will end up arguing over the 'cost' and conservatives in both parties will use that argument as a mere political tool to force action on other pet initiatives as yet another tumbleweed 'emergency' supplemental occupation funding bill is weighted down with ass-covering 'benchmarks', exit-ramps' and other toothless provisions meant to persuade the president to do what they could, themselves, with a chorus of 'nays' when the voting starts.

So, who can blame our new president for his decisive exercise of the power assumed to/by him by Congress' inaction and refusal to exercise their own responsibilities to actually declare the 'war' he feels so free to wage and escalate? After all, if President Obama doesn't commit more troops to Afghanistan, who will?

[mike_c]

1. congress authorizes and pays for war...

...but they don't manage it. That's the executive's job, and the general's.

Congress COULD put a stop to it-- either by withdrawing the authorization or by denying the funds.

[bigtree]

2. I think an argument could be made

. . . that the nation-building defense of Kabul (and Kandahar) is outside of the original authorization to use military force, and that, unless the administration can demonstrate that their mission comports with the original pursuit of the alleged perps of the 9-11 plane crashes these further deployments and mission should require an new authorization.

[mike_c]

4. I agree with you, certainly....

...but that would require that either the principles themselves make that argument, or that some third party with authority makes it, meaning the Judiciary. And that won't happen, not in our lifetimes.

That only leaves the electorate, which is fickle beyond all imagining, IMO. I'd LOVE to say that the people are outraged enough to vote the war mongering bastards out of office, but the truth is that the people are mostly too concerned about bigger issues, like who gets voted off the island next week, to pay attention to small stuff like crimes against humanity.

[HamdenRice]

3. Uh, no

Congress does not manage war, and the president's adoption of a plan for Afghanistan is not a continuation of Bush era executive autocracy.

[bigtree]

5. Not Bush's? Then it's a new plan which requires a new authorization

. . . or it is a continuation of Bush's autocratic authority. After all, it's not really a 'war' in any constitutional sense. It's an autocratic exercise of the deployment loophole which allows the president to unilaterally deploy troops for a short time until Congress approves or disapproves with their control of the money. That's as autocratic as Bush's deployments.

And, Congress doesn't manage war? Then what are those benchmarks and goals in their funding legislation meant for?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. We have a "War President" with a compliant congress that refuses to rein him in.

One can't help but wonder if a Democratic congress would be so willing to cave on Afghanistan if Bush was doing the same as Obama is.

[bigtree]

7. on Afghanistan?

They all tend to believe enough in the strength and correctness of their own ideals to assume those can exist and prosper behind their mindless approval of more militarism. It's a kinder, gentler militarism. A gun in one hand and magic beans in the other.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. It's the fear of being seen to lose a war rather than a desire to "win".

I see this as Obama's attempt to find an "honorable" way out. A way to spread the blame to our "allies" who are reluctant to do anything other than give lip service, to Pakistan where the real cost of the war is being felt, to congress who will go along and will later be told "Well, you voted for it", and, of course, the "cut and run" left who "undercut" the glorious military.

All to the tune of "support our troops" and parade of dancing bogeymen.

[Mari333]

8. [phone]

exactly. they know how much money they will make and thats all they care about.

[bigtree]

10. .