After months of criticizing Democrats -- and a few brave Republicans -- in Congress for not having an alternative plan, the president now faces the prospect of a specific congressional alternative course for Iraq.

It is still possible of course that the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives will not reach agreement on an Iraq supplemental conference report, but that appears unlikely. So there may soon be an agreed Congressional course for Iraq, a course not very different from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, or ISG.

Rather than specifying his plan -- other than to leave office with the Iraq quagmire left to his successor -- or demonstrating how the "surge" will lead to a less bad outcome than the ISG or congressional plan, the president is trying to take cover in various hiding places in order to avoid this central issue, all the while still making demands as if Congress remained supine.

The president's first hiding place is behind Gen. David Petraeus with the assertion that Congress is substituting its judgment for that of Petraeus and the field commanders. In fact Congress is not disputing Petraeus' operational plan but rather is offering an alternative strategic judgment for the failed strategic judgment of the president. The voters in November and the polls would seem to make this an insecure hiding place.

The next hiding place is behind "the troops." The president contends that delay in the supplemental would mean the troops now in Iraq might be delayed in returning home and that troops at home might be sent earlier. It is easy to see how a funding shortfall if it exists might delay troop rotation from Iraq but it hard to see how that would simultaneously allow funding to send troops early. Is this a backdoor indication that the president will use the supplemental to increase troop levels beyond the original surge?

The president ignores the provisions of the supplemental that require the troops being deployed to Iraq to have proper training and equipment, or in some instances to certify that national security necessitates their deployment without such training and equipment.

These provisions and those stipulating minimum times between deployments actually do support the troops and force the president to face the implications of his mismanagement of the war. The supplemental also adds needed funds for veterans' health care to repair the chronic underfunding of military and veterans' health care that the lack of planning for Iraq war casualties has exacerbated. Not much cover here.

Hiding place number three is behind a false reading of the U.S. Constitution. Article II, section 2, in a single 34-word phrase, designates the president as commander in chief of the Armed Services and the State militias when called into "actual service of the United States."

By contrast, Article I, Section 8 sets out Congressional authority in seven specific phrases, many relevant to the current debate. Congress is granted the power to "raise and support armies." The president demands that this 'power of the purse" be interpreted only on an all or nothing basis. Further, that section gives Congress the power of "governing" such part of the militia -- aka National Guard -- as may be employed in federal service. Given recent revelations of unprecedented call-ups of National Guard units, Congress has a clear right to "govern" the conditions under which they are deployed. Little cover here.

The president also wants to hide behind the unprecedented nature of such congressional action. The same precedence assertion combined with "executive privilege" is being used in the federal prosecutor firing fiasco. But this hiding place becomes transparent in light of conditions and timelines set for President Bill Clinton's deployment of forces to Somalia and Haiti, as well as on President Nixon during the Vietnam War.

The final place to hide is to charge "micro-management." Given the almost total lack of competent planning for the occupation and reconstruction, as well as the lack of planning for troop protection and enough capacity for the returning wounded, any attempt at management is likely to seem like micro-management to the president. Arguing "micro-management" provides little cover.

While trying to find a place to hide, the president continues to be the demander in chief. He demands an unencumbered appropriations bill and testimony by Karl Rove and others without oath or transcript. On these and other issues he demands that Congress do what he wants as if this were a monarchy or the November elections never happened.

As the 2008 elections approach, the demander-in-chief cannot run again and is running out of places to hide.

(Col. Richard L. Klass, USAF, retired, is a USAF Academy graduate, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the President of the Veterans Alliance for Security and Democracy at www.vetpac.org.) (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

Email This Article

Related Links
Iraq: The first technology war of the 21st century