Webb’s ill-conceived and unconstitutional measure, which would have required that units spend as much time at home as they do in Iraq or Afghanistan, was sent to the ignoble death it deserved when Democrats fell four votes short of the necessary 60 votes required for cloture.
Had Webb got his way, it would have impermissibly eviscerated the Executive Branch’s war making powers, which are specifically set forth in the Constitution, and simultaneously crippled the United States’ ability to defend its interests around the globe. And while it would no doubt have eventually been tossed out by a competent federal court, the damage it could have done before judicial review is mind boggling.
To give the reader some perspective by way of example, had some idiot Senator in the 1940s been able to impose such legislation on FDR, most of the units who particpated in D-Day would have had to have been sent home before the fighting in the Hedgerow Country was over in the summer of 1944. Meanwhile, half of the Marine regiments who particpated in the landings on Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa would not have been available to commanders. The end result would have been that the Red Army would have likely conqurered most of Europe while the Allies would have been mired in Normandy and the south of France around Marsailles. There would have been no NATO and “Western Europe” as we knew it during the Cold War would have consisted of a few hundred miles of France and the Southern part of Italy. In the Pacific, it would have taken us a few more years and a few hundred thousand more lives to have inexperienced soldiers and Marines fighting the tenacious Imperial Army of Japan across the Pacific, and by the time we seized an airfield close enough to the Home Islands for us to use atomic weapons, it is very likely that the Soviets would have conquered the Korean Peninsula, Manchuria and most of Northern Japan. The post war implications for Asia are too awful to digest.
The truth is, even Senator Webb, as a lawyer, has to know that his legislation is unconstitutional idiocy. However, this mentally-imbalanced man would apparently subvert the Constitution and cripple the United States’ ability to defend itself to make an easy point against President Bush. If Webb had any real political courage or intelligence, and any respect for the Constitution, he would author proposed legislation that could accomplish these goals while staying within the checks and balances of power specifically set forth in the Constitution. In truth, it would be easy, all Senator Webb would have to do is propose legislation cutting off funding for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing so, he would be acting within the scope of power granted to him as a legislator. Of course, such a move would be much harder to sell to a somewhat inattentive American public and would likely expose Webb and his Democrat Party for what they are–the party that is hostile to the defense of American interests and the party which wishes to see us defeated in the current war against Islamofacism.
Filed under: Virginia Politics
Webb is a disgrace. I think that his motive is more personal, that he can’t stand the idea of his son supporting the mission. I don’t think he cares at all whether we succeed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. If I’m wrong, then, he’s an incompetent that refuses to follow the Constitution, thereby abrogating his oath of office. At least John McCain said the right thing, thereby supporting troops like Sgt. Jeffers. See our site for the link.
Actually, the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility “[t]o make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces…” (Article I, Section VII) The Republicans in Congress refuse to follow the Constitution, i.e. they fail to realize that it’s Congress that’s supposed to declare war and set military policy and that the role of the President as “commander-in chief of the armed forced” (note: he’s not commander-in-chief of the country) is a narrow one.
Foolish sophistry. Congress has the power to enact rules regulating our land forces with respect to a uniform code of military conduct, etc. There isn’t a single serious constitutional scholar who has extrapolated this very narrow power to mean that congress gets to dictate the manner in which our forces are deployed–and this constitutional interpretation is backed up by 218 years of conduct between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Moreover, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President has the sole authority to decide the time and manner of the deployment of our Armed Forces–Constitutional Law that is also backed up by 218 years of conduct. Congresses soul power is whether to fund such expeditions by the C-in-C.
To assert otherwise is to ignore the fact that each and everyone of our Presidents has at one time or the other, deployed troops into combat without Congressional authority.
We already knew, based on the gun incident, that Jim Webb has no respect for the rule of law. This hideous law further proves this sad point.
Rittenger:
If I may be so bold, may I suggest that you change “war making powers” to “war execution power”? I realize this may be splitting hairs but I think the connotation is important.
It is very clear that the Framers wanted the power to declare war left to the Legislative Branch but the day to day execution of war in the hands of the Executive. The Framers understood that in time of war decisions must be made crisply and that simply cannot be done by consensus vote in a bicameral legislature.
The Framers understood this all too well from their experience with the American Revolution. One need only read Ralph Ketcham’s biography of James Madison to understand. During the American Revolution, Madison served in the Continental Congress which was the closest thing to a national government existent during that time. He served on the Continental Congress’ Board of Admiralty and his frustration and exasperation from having a parliamentary executive/legislative hybrid government trying to direct a Navy are palpably evident.
It is easy to see that Madison learned a hard lesson from this experience and why day to day execution of a war is left to a one person executive instead of a multi-person legislative branch. There are ample tools left to the Legislative Branch to end a war via appropriation, rescinding the act of war, etc. Clearly these are tools of blunt force with no room for nuance.
What is evident by Senator Webb’s legislative initiative is a lack of nerve. Instead of taking a bold stand by using the Legislature’s clearly defined and accepted authority, the Senator wants the Legislature to micro-manage the personnel/staffing policies of the Executive Branch which is clearly authority not intended for the Legislature.
Instead of micro-managing the Ops Tempo of the armed forces, the Senator should use the powers clearly assigned to the Legislative Branch. He could introduce legislation to reduce the number of military personnel under the Legislature’s power to raise & maintain the armed forces. He could introduce legislation to cut funding for the war. He could introduce legislation rescinding the authority to prosecute the war in Iraq. All of these would achieve the effect he desires.
However, the Framers didn’t want the Legislature to micro-manage a war. Instead they wanted the legislature to have the ability to end a war that was an unmitigated, catastrophic disaster. Such a situation would require decisive, blunt action and that’s why they gave the legislature blunt legislative instruments to effect such action.
If Senator Webb thinks the Iraq War is such a catastrophic failure, then he needs to live up to some of that television bravado and invoke some of those blunt legislative force option granted to the Congress to end the war. Of course, that would mean taking responsibility for the aftermath of an immediate Iraq withdrawal. But isn’t that what politicians are elected to do….take responsibility?
Well stated, you captured the jist of my point in a more refined fashion.
The interesting thing about Webb is his penchant for “talking tough” and then retreating in the face of opposition. When Webb became Secretary of the Navy, he boldly spoke of remaking the Navy and building it to his own specifications, when Carlucci decided that Webb’s vision was idiotic, Webb either provoked his own termination or quit (depending upon who you talk to) and threw a hissy fit on his way out the door.
Since his election to the Senate, Webb has thrown several hissy fits, but has always retreated when forced to back up his rhetoric with concrete actions. It is amazing to watch a man who was obviously once possessed of enormous physical courage act like a moral and intellectual coward at every turn.
Everyone who have commented so far have exhibited a seriously skewed view of the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. Once the President gets us into war, a war that was begun under false intelligence, he has absolute power over the military? I fail to see your reasoning that Congress doesn’t have the right to control the troop deployments since Congress oversees the funding of the entire federal government. The military falls under their purveyance.
Article I, Section 8 states: The Congress shall have power to
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
I fail to see how the Anonymous poster exhibits sophistry. The Article seems pretty clear cut to me.
Had this been a Democratic President I’m sure you’d all feel differently since you people obviously feel that the national security issues and the military belong to the GOP.
Let me say a couple more things in defense of Senator Webb and then I will leave your blog for good. Even before running for office, even before the war began, Senator Webb warned against the invasion into Iraq. He staked his reputation into that article even though at the time he wrote it, popular opinion in the nation was decidedly for the war.
For you people to use ad hominem arguments against Senator Webb in regards to his son’s service is sickening to say the least. Soldiers don’t get to choose their battles. Senator Webb is not the only anti-war figure to have a son who has fought for this country. Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, West Point graduate and Vietnam Veteran lost his son earlier this year when he was killed in Iraq.
Politics has nothing to do with people serving in the military. You cite Senator McCain as a war hero and Senator Graham. While John McCain is a bona fide warrior, Senator Lindsey Graham is little more than a lawyer in a uniform. The closest he’d ever been to war was giving Rules of Engagement briefings to pilots departing for Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
Senator Jim Webb is a decorated Marine. He earned two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars, one Silver Star, and the Navy Cross while saving the lives of his own man. He still cares about his troops who were with him in Vietnam and the troops who are overseas today serving in Iraq.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps has said repeatedly that the Army and the Marines are being overstretched as a result of the war. They’re not getting the proper time of training stateside. The Webb Amendment would have ameliorated this grave problem.
I apologize for this long post. Good day to you all.