GovernmentExecutive.com

Congress this week steps up its own surge of efforts to grab back its war powers from the Executive Branch. Early tests of strength will come soon in both the House and Senate as Democrats and a thin line of Republicans try to figure out a way to wrest the steering wheel for the Iraq War away from President Bush without looking reckless or weak on defense.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., thought he had figured out how to do this but has run into a backlash in his own party. Murtha's idea was to write in a series of conditions in the supplemental war funding bill providing the $93.4 billion Bush has requested for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One of Murtha's intended conditions was to forbid Bush from sending a fighting outfit to Iraq that has not had a year of duty at home between deployments. Another was to specify that no unit that was not fully equipped for battle could be deployed.

The ugly truth about the American military right now is that Bush has kept the Army and Marine Corps too small for too long to allow units to stay home for a year between deployments and still put additional boots on the ground under his surge strategy. Exacerbating that manpower problem is the fact that the nation's governors are in near rebellion over what they consider Bush's over-deployment of their National Guard units to Iraq.

As for getting all the soldiers and marines fully equipped before they leave their home bases, no can do.

The reason, as Murtha and others clued into the realities of today's near-broken military well know, is that for these past five years, units with orders to go to Iraq have been taking equipment from units staying home. This has created shortages that Bush could not possibly cure in time to execute his surge strategy of adding 21,500 troops to the American force in Iraq over the next several months.

So Murtha's stratagems would have indeed prevented Bush from executing his surge strategy. But a growing number of Democratic moderates are defecting from his proposal on the grounds that it would look like they were micromanaging the war.

So less severe restrictions are under discussion as the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee prepares to tinker with Bush's request for approximately $100 billion in extra money for the wars.

The Senate went through a Kabuki dance before the Presidents Day recess over a formal objection to Bush's surge. To the obvious embarrassment of the Democratic leadership, that other body could not come up with any non-binding resolution to protest the surge like the House did.

So the would-be Senate protesters of Bush's escalation will focus in coming days on repealing the 2002 congressional resolution that authorized Bush to invade Iraq in the first place. If past is prologue, as it usually is with such efforts, this will be like trying to put an egg back into a chicken.

Like the Iraq War of today, the Vietnam War became increasingly unpopular with the public as it dragged on and U.S. casualties mounted.

Yet the legislative record shows that the various war power resolutions the Senate passed had little impact on the presidential military actions in Vietnam.

Not until 1973, eight years after President Lyndon Johnson authorized U. S. troops to conduct offensive operations on April 6, 1965, did Congress muster the strength to vote against appropriating any more money to finance the war in Vietnam.

Still, the same engine that pushed Congress into forcing President Richard Nixon to change course on the Vietnam War is the same one pushing Congress into forcing Bush to change course on the Iraq War.

The engine is Congress feeling that its war powers have been usurped by the executive. History shows that once Congress starts up that engine, as it has now done for Iraq, the engine stalls but does not quit.

Murtha's forbearer as chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was the late Rep. Joseph Addabbo, D-N.Y. In 1973, Addabbo used an appropriations bill to stop the Vietnam War, just as Murtha is trying to do now to change the course of the Iraq War.

"For too long, the Congress has bowed to the wishes of this and the previous administration on Indochina policies," Addabbo told his colleagues on the House floor on June 26, 1973. "And I believe the time has come for the Congress to say firmly -- and once and for all -- we are done with war making on behalf of dubious causes without the express consent of Congress."

Congress, in trying to reassert its war powers, will resemble a nervous nurse pulling a Band-Aid off one hair at a time rather boldly pulling it off all at once.

But the reassertion process has started, and, although it will be painful to watch, will not stop. The pace could well be determined by what the enemy does in Iraq rather than what the lawmakers do in Washington.

U.S. commanders have been reporting that the enemy is becoming more sophisticated in its tactics, noting how many U.S. helicopters have been shot down. This is what happened in Vietnam, too, as the enemy learned how to offset U.S. technical superiority with such simple tactics as riflemen lying on their backs and shooting a fusillade of bullets into the path of a U.S. chopper, often downing it.

Higher U.S. casualties in Iraq, as was the case in Vietnam, would intensify congressional efforts to change the course of the war. As Yogi Berra would put it, it's deja vu all over again.

COMMENTS

• After the Cold War, I think most people thought it logical to decrease the size of the military (don't forget Cheney as Defense Secretary also recommended sizeable cuts before Clinton took office). But what makes less sense is Bush's constant harping that this is the ultimate clash of civilizations (since 9/11) but has done nothing until recently to increase the size, or improve the lot, of the military. Instead his administration has done everything possible to grind the military down to its very core and make it nearly impossible for it to respond to any other crisis should it occur. And, because Bush has made the world a lot less safe for everyone, that's a very scary thought. In fact, they done everything to ensure defeat in Iraq (although I guess if you can't define win, how do you define defeat?) and lose the GWOT! Then they want to harp about how they “Support The Troops,” all evidence to the contrary when you look at the care the soldiers are getting at Walter Reed. And, who gets the blame - lower enlisted personal. The top brass has known for years about the deplorable conditions and have done nothing. Are any of them being punished? That's the hallmark of this administration and the sad 30-percenters who still support it - make every mistake possible, accept no responsibility and hold those who had nothing to do with the foul-ups accountable. Can you please stop blaming Bill Clinton for mistakes made by the NeoCon Right Wing Talibangicals running this country? GovExec.com reader Posted March 1, 2007 2:20 PM
• Where was Murtha during the Clinton administration, when the Army was cut from 16 divisions to 10, the Marines were likewise scaled back, the Navy cut in half, and the Air Force as well? Did he support those cuts, only to complain now that there are not enough troops? I have a feeling he didn't complain too much back then, because his party was in the White House. Looks like just another partisan political attack from someone who claims to support the troops, but then seeks to cut appropriations, which would cut off their reinforcements and badly needed supplies and equipment. He can't have it both ways! Funny how Gen. Petraeus was confirmed as the new commander in Iraq with no opposition in Congress, but now this same Congress, which didn't object to his plans (including the surge) wants to cut funding to carry out his strategy! If Congress truly believed what it was saying, it would have refused to confirm him, or opposed his plan. Instead, it voted to confirm his nomination, thereby in effect, endorsing him and his stated plans. Talk about straddling the fence! How absurd, and how shameful. GovExec.com reader Posted February 27, 2007 11:55 PM
• Somebody help me out, what is Mr. Bush's troop surge supposed to do? That is, is it intended to calm down specific area's of unrest in Iraq buying time for the Iraq forces to firm up (Isn't that the President's idea?) or is it intended to put more US force on the ground to protect US forces already there? The reason my friends, is the difference... who the hell are we protecting? If American Force's are calling a covered wagon or today’s equivalent, send every available US asset needed to prevent the massacre! Otherwise, it's nothing more than another deceitful ploy by Mr. Bush to save his failed policy. By the way, exactly what did Yogi mean if he didn't intend to refer to repeating things that have already happened (history, for example) by repeating himself? Cracked & Wired Posted February 27, 2007 1:31 PM