Saturday, April 7, 2007

Games in Washington and the Dangers of Withdrawal

American foreign policy is very relevant to events in the Middle East. As such, I will be commenting on developments in Washington politics and their effect on the Middle East. I will try not to be political in my commentary; but, rather judge politics in context of the situation at hand. Again, I am not an authority on any of these matters; I am only a concerned American Muslim. If you have any qualms about anything I say, please feel free to state them. I am always willing to learn from you.

The District has been playing games with the American people for the past few weeks. I think this is unfair to both the Iraqi people and the American troops. The Congress, controlled by Democrats, is trying to usurp the power that President Bush has amassed for the office of Chief Executive over the last 6 years.

We see this in powers removed from the Department of Justice. The Congress feels that the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has abused its powers by unduly firing attorneys based on political affiliation. Although I believe that this issue is a legitimate one for Congress to investigate, I will not elaborate because it does not directly affect the State of the Muslim Ummah.

We also see this in Speaker Pelosi's visit to Syria. The Constitution gives the President the sole right to conduct affairs with foreign diplomats. However, during the past month, many elected officials have visited Syria, such as Republican Congressman Frank Wolf. This is not unusual because American officials often go abroad to learn more about foreign affairs. To me, Ms Pelosi's high-profile visit to Syria seems like an official visit by a head of state, which she is not. Ms. Pelosi claims that her visit to Syria was only to reinforce the President's policy. However, she went without the President's permission. I believe that her trip might have been more successful had she gone with the President's support. For example, Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic nomination to the Office of President, is in North Korea now (with the permission of President Bush) in order to negotiate the return of remains of US soldiers fighting during the Korean War. I hope that the United States does open negotiations with Syria and Iran, but Syria must discontinue its support of terrorism and Iran must allow more openness in its development of nuclear technology. Ms. Pelosi's visit can only be judged as successful if the United States is more open with Syria and Iran in the near future. Otherwise, it will be judged as an attempt to sabotage and embarrass the President.

The Congress has taken a recess without passing a war funding bill. This will have great consequences to the events in Iraq. I called Maryland Representative and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer to express my concern over the war funding bill. I believe that this bill was a mistake for two reasons, which have been reiterated by President Bush today in his weekly radio address. First, the bill has too much pork, too many projects not concerned with the War in Iraq. The war is too important to be grouped with other spending items. It is unfair for Democratic lawmakers to group them in this way. It has been reported in many media outlets that the reason for these extra items was to "bribe" lawmakers to vote in favor of the war spending bill. Democratic leaders have denounced this claim, asserting that the bill appropriates money for general spending. Although I do not claim that the extra spending in the bill is unneeded, I believe that there should be a separate bill with spending for these extra items.

Second, the bill contains a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Not withstanding the appropriateness of withdrawal, I believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to legislate a war. Even if Congress overturned the President's soon-to-be veto of the bill (which is unrealistic to imagine), I believe the President would be within his rights to question the constitutionality of the bill in the Supreme Court. (I also believe he would win, with Justice Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Stevens voting in favor of the President).

Only history can decide whether or not the War in Iraq is a mistake. I am still very insecure on the morality of this war, especially because of the havoc it has wrecked on the people of Iraq. Nonetheless, there has been some progress. Iraq has a Constitution, a functioning legislature and an independent judiciary. The American military and politicians overestimated the the effort it would take to restore security in Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Instead of becoming a model of democracy and freedom, Iraq has become a haven for terrorism, much to the deterioration of the Iraqi people, and furthermore to Muslims around the world. I believe that this war has been bungled and mismanaged by the President. But I still don't believe that withdrawal is the best solution. The bill in Congress now creates an artificial and ambiguous date of withdrawal. Troops will be withdrawn from Iraq within the next few months (with a nonbinding date of March 2008), and sooner if certain deadlines of security are not met by the Iraqi government. Senator and candidate for the Republican nomination to the Presidency John McCain claimed that life in Iraq has gotten better. He later took back this statement, but still believes that the United States is on the right track in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970430/) . Withdrawing from Iraq would create a vacuum in the region. Iran would move in, alerting Sunni nations bordering Iraq. There would be a Civil War. But maybe an all-out Civil War is inevitable and the US military is only delaying the process. I do not believe that this is the case. If the United States is able to restore security in the region, any Civil War will be thwarted. Shiite and Sunni extremists will slowly lose influence if they are prosecuted and incarcerated. I think that it is right for the United States to fix the problem it has created in the region, whether or not these problems were unintentionally created.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

Hey Sarah!
Awesome post. Here are my 10 cents on the topic:

"Iraq has a Constitution, a functioning legislature and an independent judiciary."

I believe that the legislature has no power whatsoever simply because it can not enforce its policies.

Same with the judiciary, it will take years- maybe even decades- for the judiciary to assert its own weight in government, provided that iraq's "democracy" survives.

"Senator and candidate for the Republican nomination to the Presidency John McCain claimed that life in Iraq has gotten better."

I know he took back the comment, but this precisely what is wrong with the American administration of Iraq: Politicians go to Iraq and live in safety zones. They live in a pocket of safety. It's as if everything in the outside world is blocked out by tinted glass. They haven't lived or ever even been on the streets; they haven't smelled the scent of blood and gunpowder. Therefore, American politicians have no idea what is going on. They can't identify with the Iraqis, and thus, they can't come up with any solutions to the problem.

Looking forward to your future posts... and rants ;)

Sarah Akhtar said...

Thanks for the comments Aakif. You're right, the legislature is powerless without the right to enforce its laws. But really, the task of enforcing Iraqi laws falls to the Iraqi President Maliki, who I think is not wholly competent for two reasons. First, he had little international experience prior to becoming prime minister Second, he led the Dawa (a Shia group) party's resistance against Saddam Hussein's Baathist party. So he might be biased against Sunnis. But the US has obviously been the main power broker in Iraq so far, and has failed in managing Iraqi construction projects throughout the country. You're also right about the judiciary; It is definately far from independent. Most Iraqi citizens do not turn to the judiciary to solve disputes.
I'm not sure I totally agree with you on politicians being ignorant about Iraq, generally speaking. I don't think there really are any "safety" zones in Iraq and the lousy living conditions are pretty apparent, even from the outside. Sure, many politicians, mostly on the conservative side claim that things are going not that badly in Iraq, but I'm not sure any of them accept that things are going well. If there are any politicans that believe everything is swell in Iraq, they are quite far from the truth.
I'll try to keep the rants to a minimum from now on, lol, but since you mentioned it, I wanted to add that I also have not been to Iraq, so I definately don't know the whole story. Everything I learn about Iraq comes from the media, which tends to have a liberal bias. BUT I do watch FOX news, also ;)

Unknown said...

Lol you gotta love the fair and balanced views of fox ;) (I do like the O'Reilly Factor though!)

Anyways you said:
"But the US has obviously been the main power broker in Iraq so far, and has failed in managing Iraqi construction projects throughout the country."

That's why I think we need more troops. We've got around 145,000 there but it's not enough. If there aren't enough troops then there isn't enough security to complete civilian projects like hospitals, water purification plants, electric lines, etc. Furthermore, congress' attempts to micromanage the war, like you said, is total f'ing up everything.

"I don't think there really are any "safety" zones in Iraq and the lousy living conditions are pretty apparent..."

Read these two articles if you have time:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/baghdad-green-zone.htm
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-px1apr01,1,720063.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

"he International Zone is commonly referred to as the "Ultimate Gated Community" due to the numerous armed checkpoints, coils of razor wire, chain link fences, and the fact it is surrounded by "T-Walls" (reinforced and blast-proof concrete slabs)."

I dunno... they look pretty comfortable to me. Plus, they have Burger King there!

The U.S. has essentially barricaded itself. All the politicians when they visit Iraq live in the Green Zone and thus they have no clue what's happening on the outside. This also helps the insurgents because U.S. forces are all packed into a tiny part of Baghdad leaving the rest of Iraq fair game.

Sarah Akhtar said...

Thanks for the articles! Yes, the green zone is much more safe than the rest of Iraq, but, it also is not completely bomb proof, as was made clear by the blasts at the Iraqi Parliament last week. The American bases in Iraq are also much more safe than the rest of the country. But I'm still not sure American politicians who visit can deny that Iraq is coming dangerously close to failed state status.