Dear America,
This is what I don't understand about the American politics surrounding the Syrian conflict, which includes the efforts to oust Assad and destroy ISIL.
On September 14, just after 9/11 when the World Trade Center was destroyed with passenger jets, the American congress authorized military action against terrorism with what is now referred to as the AUMF: the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, and that led to what were tantamount to declarations of war by President W first on Afghanistan, and then in 2003 on Iraq. On both occasions, harboring al Qaeda operatives was at least part of the pretext for war. No one ever talked about the congressional abdication of its constitutional powers relative to declaring war, though it sometimes got mention as time passed. And since the core purpose of the AUMF was to fight terrorism wherever in the world it was found, it continues to be the ostensible authorization for deployment of American arms and forces in Iraq, and now in Syria, where we have only a handful of soldiers fighting, or at least advising along with considerable air power. But President Obama has asked congress to update, or pass a new, AUMF to specifically authorize him to deploy forces in Syria and what is now a putatively free country, Iraq. The Republican congress has obdurately refused for what I can only assume are partisan reasons, yet they, and their aspirants to the presidency in particular, continually castigate President Obama for not doing more in Syria and Iraq with regard to fighting ISIL. Concomitantly, they complain that they can't trust President Obama because he has used what amounts to prosecutorial discretion, executive power no matter what you call it, to limit the effects of current immigration law on young people who are in this country illegally through no fault of their own and have lived virtually all of their lives as Americans...going to school, working and paying taxes...just like the rest of us. So, the Republicans have been criticizing President Obama for both using too much executive initiative and not using enough at the same time. Now the other side of this coin.
This has been going on for at least three years, ever since the civil war in Syria began. While the Republicans complain that we should have declared war on Assad like we did on Saddam Hussein and the Afghani Taliban, who controlled Afghanistan in 2001, all the while refusing to give President Obama the authority to act, the Democrats have declined to call them on it. Some Democrats even agree with the Republicans that the President should have done more to overthrow Assad, but none of them ever point out that doing so would be the overstepping of constitutional checks and balances because congress has refused to authorize such a military action. As it is, President Obama has deployed American military force abroad without congressional input much less action in the form of authorization of such actions...about which they never complain, incidentally...but no Democrat ever points out that the only things we are doing in furtherance of what seems to be the Republican goal of ridding the world of Assad and ISIL are being done despite the fact that the Republicans refuse to authorize even that much of an effort. The President has even gone so far as to send congress a draft of what he wants them to authorize him to do, but they still refuse. And as in the case of the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank, they have been unable to propose their own alternatives. In other words, the Republicans have decided that no action is better than any on both the Middle Eastern front and the Wall Street front. So why isn't any Democrat pointing that out.
I'm hoping that the lack of zeal for response to partisanship with partisanship is a coherent strategy. That's what the Republicans say they want from The President...a coherent strategy in Syria and Iraq, and that's what I want from the Democrats relative to the Republicans' coherent strategy of demanding a coherent strategy from the other side while offering none of their own. But as far as I can tell, if the Democrats do have a strategy, it is only one of two possibilities. Either they are trying to take the high road so that they can boast to the electorate that while the Republicans have descended into partisan hell in an effort to regain control of the Presidency, the only branch of government that they don't already control, or they are waiting to point out the internal contradictions in the Republican focus on President Obama's policies even though they are the obstacle to him doing anything more, and despite the fact that he isn't running for anything anymore anyway. The former strategy is a little subtle for my taste and smacks a bit of "can't we all just get along." Such exhortations never work. But if the Democrats are just waiting to spring until a Democratic nomination is sewn up, that might work.
Of course, we are facing odds here. How often have the Democrats united to do the smart thing. I am reminded of Brad Stupack and the Stupettes when Mr. Obama was trying to get congress to pass a health care law that is not what he wanted but was the best he could get out of congress at the time. Stupack and the other "Blue Dog Democrats," otherwise known as Republicans in Democrat clothing, basically sabotaged any chance of a single-payer system and damn near sabotaged the Affordable Care Act over a demand for assurance that the Hyde Amendment, a forty year old prohibition of use of federal funds for abortion, applied to the Affordable Care Act as if there was a possibility that it might not. Thus, the question really boils down to this: when it comes to the Democratic Party, is there any way that a smart plan can get an amen. My fingers are crossed.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment