EDMAY2810

It was September 11, 2001 when hijacked commerical airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and a third crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

From September 12, 2001 to today nearly a trillion dollars has been spent on an idea that found its earliest legislative steps in Congress in 1998 in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-338). The law expressed "the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Congress and the President got their way on October 10th and October 16th, 2002 when the House and then the Senate approved HJR 114 authorizing the use of armed forces against Iraq. HJR 114 became public law on October 16, 2002 when signed by President Bush.

Nearly 9 years later this month President Obama issued Executive Order 13541 creating within the Department of State the temporary Iraq Strategic Partnership Office (ISPO) to assist with and coordinate the drawdown of provincial reconstruction teams, support and create a sustainable rule of law mission in Iraq, and complete any remaining coordination, oversight or reporting functions for Iraq relief and reconstruction fund monies.

Involvement in Iraq may have been a plan waiting for a cause of action if we consider Richard Nixon's references in Beyond Freedom, his 1994 book on US foreign policy. Nixon asserted what several of his early staff supported several years later when they created The Project for the New American Century; that converting mid-east countries to democracy and securing a steady flow of mid-east oil at any cost, including occupation, is essential to securing the US economy. As HJR 114 itself states, "safeguarding the free flow of energy supplies has been recognized as a vital national security concern of the United States for scores of years."

Further evidence that lawmakers had been exposed to that theory can be seen in 1997 when United Oil of California (UNOCAL) testified before one of the House subcommittees that if the essential oil is to be kept flowing a pipeline through Taliban-oriented Afghanistan and Pakistan, and finally India was the answer.

What the resolution didn't get right we now know; Iraq was not a center for international terrorist training and it did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction as the resolution and war supporters asserted.

For whatever reasons were in the mind of the President at the time and no matter how deeply Members of Congress were convinced that Iraq was a military threat to the US, the war went forward and continued despite reason after reason being given and disputed and many mea culpa's from Members who later regretted their supportive votes.

In retrospect it was the CBO that got it all right, though; "the incremental costs of deploying a force to the Persian Gulf would be between $9 billion and $13 billion and that prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month" CBO added "After hostilities end, the costs to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion...the incremental cost of an occupation following combat operations would vary from about $1 billion to $4 billion a month."

Wars have a way of continuing after the combat stops. In the end thousands of American , coalition, and Iraqi troops paid the ultimate price. While the Iraq war will one day be history, thousands of US veterans will continue to pay the price of living with a physical or mental disability while taxpayers continue to pay the price of caring for them. ##

No reproduction, language translation or distribution of all website content without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

How To Strengthen Congress

by Lee Hamilton

"So the question is no longer what’s wrong with Congress. Far more important is to ask what can be done about it."

This is an uncomfortable time to be a member of Congress. Survey after survey registers deep dissatisfaction with Capitol Hill and, more strikingly, with the individual politicians who make it up. An AP poll in April found that half of those surveyed intended to vote against their own members of Congress. A Washington Post-ABC News survey painted an even more dire picture, with the Post writing, “Members of Congress face the most anti-incumbent electorate since 1994, with less than a third saying they are inclined to support their representatives in November.”

Sometimes I think that criticizing Congress is America’s favorite indoor sport. And it’s not just your average citizen who does it. Members of Congress themselves like to join in, and so do Washington’s army of lobbyists and, often, the White House. It is hard to find a voice that defends the Congress.

Some of the institution’s unpopularity can be traced to issues of the moment, such as worries about high levels of federal spending, the health-reform debate, and lingering concern about the economy.

But the truth is, Congress’ low standing is not of recent vintage — its abysmal approval rate of 16 percent in a March Gallup Poll was actually two points higher than in July 2008. Indeed, its approval has been on a long, slow decline since 2002, according to Gallup. The troubles Congress faces, in other words, are more deep-seated than any given public-policy issue.

So the question is no longer what’s wrong with Congress. Far more important is to ask what can be done about it. For, counter-intuitive as it might seem, we need to strengthen Congress, which over the decades has become too timid and weak. It has fallen far short of the role the Founders envisioned for it, and in doing so has put our constitutional system at risk by becoming less representative, accessible, and deliberative. By allowing itself to become a weakened branch, Congress has made representative democracy itself more precarious.

I often ask the question, “How far down the road can you go in strengthening the executive and weakening the legislature, and still have representative democracy?” We’re perilously close to finding out, which makes strengthening Congress one of the most important challenges we face.

Here’s my list of the most important priorities:

First and foremost, Congress needs to reassert the considerable powers it has been granted by the Constitution: the power of the purse, the ability to set the national policy agenda, and, whenever it comes up again, the decision to go to war.

Our Founders envisioned Congress as a co-equal branch with the presidency, but in recent years it has lacked a strong institutional voice, either because it was too diffident or so tied up in knots that it could barely stand up for itself. Members simply must take much more seriously their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. It won’t change overnight into the robust, co-equal branch the Founders envisioned, but it could be far more assertive in exercising its prerogatives.

Steps beyond this include.

Strengthening oversight. Tough and continuous oversight holds the President accountable, prevents government missteps, and helps it to learn from its mistakes. Congress simply does not pay enough attention to the implementation and management of the programs it enacts. Most fundamentally, oversight is about Congress’ responsibility to make sure the federal government is serving the American people.

Restoring the deliberative process. Democracy is above all about process — how we arrive at decisions and new policies matters immensely. Yet Congress today frequently shortcuts the deliberative process established over the years. It is Congress’ job not just to pass laws, but to do so in a way that allows it — and the people it serves — to understand the issues before it, reconcile competing views, and find a way of moving forward even when not everyone agrees.

Reducing excessive partisanship. Hard-hitting partisan competition can be healthy, but not when it becomes mean-spirited, blocks dialogue, and gets in the way of productive governance. Stalemate in the cause of partisan gain robs Congress of its credibility.

Strengthening ethics enforcement. Members do not sufficiently understand how important integrity is to the standing of Congress. Quite simply, Congress cannot rebuild its public standing unless Americans trust that its members act always in the public interest and always in a manner that reflects credit on the Congress.

Curbing the influence of special interests. Too many Americans believe Congress is beholden to well-heeled interests. The root of the matter is the money they pour into campaigns and their success in influencing the legislation that Congress passes. Only informed voters can judge whether an individual member allowed narrow interests to outweigh their own — and the general public’s — interests. The absolute transparency to the voter is essential.

Strengthening citizen participation. Much of what I’ve suggested above is Congress’ responsibility. But making Congress a stronger, more responsive institution ultimately will rest with ordinary Americans.

Citizens need to take responsibility for remaining informed — and not just by reading material coming from one ideological side; for backing candidates who respect Congress as an institution, and don’t merely run against it; for rejecting misinformation and especially appeals to extremism; and for insisting that their own members of Congress work to build, rather than destroy, consensus, comity, and common sense.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.