A potential risk to the next president's authority to remove forces from Iraq
|
|
I saw a very frightening story in the news today. Our current president, who got us into this misguided war in Iraq, in an agreement with the Maliki government has set December 2008 as the last date for the US occupation of Iraq under the US resolution authorizing the US presence there.
At first blush this may sound like great news, however, this president is also negotiating a treaty with the Maliki government to be completed by next summer which will govern the continued US troop presence. This is an enormously important development.
The structure of that treaty could control any future US presidents freedom to make independent decisions in Iraq. It could delay the ability to make independent decisions through timelines for withdrawl from the treaty or it could effectively commit the United States to a permanent presence in Iraq through unmet benchmarks. This president if we are not careful could write into treaty law the continuation of his disastrous policies in Iraq.
The news article I read with links to the current agreements can be found here. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/22143.html .
Treaty law is often misunderstood but an incredibly powerful political and policy tool if wielded correctly. It offers the benefit of writting the US house of representatives out of any debate and requires only the president and concurrance of 2/3 of the US Senate. Once adopted a treaty as stated in the US constitution is extremely binding.
Article 6.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
We must be wary and vigilant that this administration does not get any treaty past the US Senate which would limit the utilization of a future presidents discretionary authority to remove forces at their disgression from Iraq.
We must ensure no such treaty makes any binding economic committments especially those based solely on the requirement we keep our forces there.
We must reject any treaty that allows the Iraqi's to tell our military how many troops we may have there. We will have enough to secure our people as we leave at our disgression not Maliki's.
We should reject any treaty completely and leave iraq in December 2008 with the end of the UN resolution.
The US senate need simply refuse to adopt the treaty when the president brings it forward for adoption.
I would urge the governor to attempt to extract promises from every democratic senator running for president that they will reject any treaty bush brings forward that would infringe on the next president's ability to conduct iraq policy as they see fit or even better to deny the adoption of any treaty whatsoever leading to a forced US withdrawl by December of 2008.
The senate belongs to the Democrats and adopting any treaty is reathorizing the occupation of Iraq. Our party must not reauthorize this war by treaty. In order to not get trapped by Bush PR spin in May we must engage the issue now and control the dialogue. We must educate the public now, not with a vote in 5 days.
Bush is stupid like a fox this treaty will undoubtably be full of more policy failures and seek to force the continuation of his policy after his departure. Likewise Maliki will use it to maintain his cushy position divorced of any pressure to truly address Iraq's political dilemma's.
Makes me wonder if this was the price Iraq's neighbors requested for Annapolis, as security against US withdrawl and forcing them to help deal positively with Iraq.
Don't give Clinton, Biden, or Dodd any room to ratify this come July. Maliki deserves no treaty especially no broad security and economic agreement. He has political feet of clay.
At first blush this may sound like great news, however, this president is also negotiating a treaty with the Maliki government to be completed by next summer which will govern the continued US troop presence. This is an enormously important development.
The structure of that treaty could control any future US presidents freedom to make independent decisions in Iraq. It could delay the ability to make independent decisions through timelines for withdrawl from the treaty or it could effectively commit the United States to a permanent presence in Iraq through unmet benchmarks. This president if we are not careful could write into treaty law the continuation of his disastrous policies in Iraq.
The news article I read with links to the current agreements can be found here. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/22143.html .
Treaty law is often misunderstood but an incredibly powerful political and policy tool if wielded correctly. It offers the benefit of writting the US house of representatives out of any debate and requires only the president and concurrance of 2/3 of the US Senate. Once adopted a treaty as stated in the US constitution is extremely binding.
Article 6.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
We must be wary and vigilant that this administration does not get any treaty past the US Senate which would limit the utilization of a future presidents discretionary authority to remove forces at their disgression from Iraq.
We must ensure no such treaty makes any binding economic committments especially those based solely on the requirement we keep our forces there.
We must reject any treaty that allows the Iraqi's to tell our military how many troops we may have there. We will have enough to secure our people as we leave at our disgression not Maliki's.
We should reject any treaty completely and leave iraq in December 2008 with the end of the UN resolution.
The US senate need simply refuse to adopt the treaty when the president brings it forward for adoption.
I would urge the governor to attempt to extract promises from every democratic senator running for president that they will reject any treaty bush brings forward that would infringe on the next president's ability to conduct iraq policy as they see fit or even better to deny the adoption of any treaty whatsoever leading to a forced US withdrawl by December of 2008.
The senate belongs to the Democrats and adopting any treaty is reathorizing the occupation of Iraq. Our party must not reauthorize this war by treaty. In order to not get trapped by Bush PR spin in May we must engage the issue now and control the dialogue. We must educate the public now, not with a vote in 5 days.
Bush is stupid like a fox this treaty will undoubtably be full of more policy failures and seek to force the continuation of his policy after his departure. Likewise Maliki will use it to maintain his cushy position divorced of any pressure to truly address Iraq's political dilemma's.
Makes me wonder if this was the price Iraq's neighbors requested for Annapolis, as security against US withdrawl and forcing them to help deal positively with Iraq.
Don't give Clinton, Biden, or Dodd any room to ratify this come July. Maliki deserves no treaty especially no broad security and economic agreement. He has political feet of clay.
