Legislating Defeat
The Pelosi-Murtha engineered attempt to load up a supplemental spending bill for the war in Iraq with massive amounts of pork is, in and of itself, reprehensible. But the actual bill itself is much, much worse. NZ Bear has gone through the excruciating process of digging the entire thing out and publishing it in its entirety. It is an ugly little attempt to hamstring the commander-in-chief in wartime. The sad thing is, they appear to be too stupid to realize that this precedent would, with absolute certainty, come back to haunt a Democrat in the White House later. It is Congress completely overstepping its constitutional authority.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.
(c) For purposes of subsection (b), the term "fully mission capable" means capable of performing assigned mission essential tasks to prescribed standards under the conditions expected in the theater of operations, consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense readiness reporting system.
(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services that the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully mission capable is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's deployment is necessary despite the chief of the military department's assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable, may waive the limitation in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.
Sec. 1902 (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of —
(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve, or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or
(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.
(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.
This is the "slow bleed" strategy that Murtha was bragging about. (And yes, I am fully aware that a journalist coined that term. It nonetheless exactly describes what Murtha intends for the legislation to accomplish). Again, there is good reason why Congress is not given the authority to conduct war, only to authorize it, then fund it. Military decisions cannot be made by committee. There are several excellent quotes and links to others who have already commented on this post over at the Victory Caucus, I'd urge you to take a look. One thing Smash says is exactly spot-on. The language in this bill would make every unit have to ship its equipment to and back from Iraq with each rotation. That would be incredibly wasteful. My son's unit went over with essentially no equipment other than personal weapons. They married up with equipment already in theater and the equipment is being turned over to their replacements now that they are coming home. That's efficient. Murtha's slow bleed is an incredible waste of taxpayer's money.
By Rightmom, Thursday, 15 March , 2007 @ 7:12 am
I say let them have their vote as it puts everyone (cowards) on record for exactly how they feel and in the end it will not matter because if the legislation were to pass the Senate the President will use his elusive veto pen.
By Former Republican, Thursday, 15 March , 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Gaius, you say Congress would be “completely overstepping its constitutional authority.” I respectfully disagree. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall have power “To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces …” The bill may (or may not) be unwise, but I don’t think it’s unconstitutional.
The bill fits squarely within the Constitutional clause just quoted. Of course, you could no doubt find some activist lawyer who was willing to read the Constution the way you want to. But me, I believe in strict construction.
By Chris, Thursday, 15 March , 2007 @ 5:43 pm
This bill may be strictly constitutional, but its intent is to infringe on the prerogative of the Commander in Chief.
Congratulations to the present Congress for bringing back fond memories of the Continental Congress and their administration of the Revolution.
By Former Republican, Friday, 16 March , 2007 @ 4:53 pm
“Congratulations to the present Congress for bringing back fond memories of the Continental Congress and their administration of the Revolution”
I think you are correct to say that the Continental Congress meddled in the administration of the war. So what’s wrong with Congressional meddling? We won the American Revolution, as I recall.
But I have to admit the analogy (like all historical analogies) is flawed. For example, we got big-time help from the French.