Senator Webb’s Leash for the Dog of War

“We have already given… one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.”

–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789

If our new Virginia Senator, Jim Webb, didn’t impress enough yet with his memorable response to the President’s State of the Union address, he’s leading the political troops again with a bold measure to rein in the Imperial Presidency.
While the new Congress muddles gingerly in efforts to restrain the President’s hand in the war already in progress in Iraq, Senator Webb has introduced new legislation intended precisely to prohibit the Bush-Cheney Administration from launching a new war on Iran – without formal Congressional authorization.
Jefferson would approve.
Below I provide the full text of Webb’s floor speech from earlier today (March 5th) introducing his legislation and a few excerpts from his afternoon press conference. It appears the main stream media has barely touched Webb’s bill — so far, even though I anticipate it may yet garner wide, even bipartisan support. (I’ll add more details on the Bill # and actual text, when I get it.) Let’s note reports we see on the bill in the discussion.
Here’s Webb’s Senate speech, with comments inserted:

“Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without congressional authorization. The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of military activities.
“I have taken great care in the preparation of this bill to ensure that it will not in any way prevent our military forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such as Iraq and in the international waters off Iran’s coast. The legislation allows American forces to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks that might be initiated from Iran, as well as those that might be begun elsewhere and then carry over into Iranian territory. I have also excluded operations related to intelligence gathering.
“The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor. Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place.

Webb then approvingly notes what may be the Bush Administration’s efforts to head off widespread concerns that it was deliberately seeking a pretext to start a war with Iran:

“Mr. President, in the past two weeks we have seen a fresh willingness on the part of this Administration to pursue new approaches for a regional settlement that will eventually allow the United States to withdraw our forces from Iraq, and also increase stability in the Middle East. I would like to commend Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates for their efforts in bringing about what seems to be the beginning of a clear, and much-needed, course correction. It is particularly significant that Iran and Syria have been invited to participate, and that the United States will join, in the upcoming regional meetings regarding Iraq.
“These upcoming meetings will offer many different countries the opportunity to address legitimate concerns and to emphasize mutual interests. I am hopeful that it will open up the door for a different kind of dialogue with Iran. Despite its new-found level of influence in Iraq, it is not in Iran’s best interest to see Iraq disintegrate into anarchy. Iran also has its challenges with its own sectarian groups, not the least of which are the Kurds. Al Qaeda represents a threat to Iran as well, and it is not in Iran’s interest to see this terrorist movement gain even more power. Free and open access to the Strait of Hormuz also is vital to Iran’s economy given its overwhelming reliance on oil exports.”

Webb gets it, even more than the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Iran has specific concrete interests and reasons for wishing to see Iraq remain whole, peaceful, and friendly. In short, as neocon outlets have long denied, the US and Iran have shared interests in Iraq – just as we do in Afghanistan. Iran has reason to be cooperative with Iraq and its neighbor precisely because it is profoundly in their interests to do so.
Webb then transitions to his all-too-plausible fears that a hot war between the US and Iran might yet be manufactured out of the mess in Iraq:

“As this regional conference approaches, the rhetoric with respect to possible Iranian activities inside Iraq continues, and the increases to our naval and missile-defense presence in the Gulf, remain. The Administration’s past failure to engage with Iran diplomatically in a meaningful way, coupled with what Iran could perceive as preparations for a military strike, create a potent brew that easily could lead to miscalculation on both sides.
“The 1988 incident with the USS Vincennes comes to mind, when an overly aggressive commanding officer, operating inside Iranian territorial waters according to a subsequent admission by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral William Crowe, shot down commercial passenger aircraft Iran Air Flight 655.

This is impressive to me. Webb was President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy until early in 1988. I was serving in government myself that summer, and I’ll never forget the disgrace of that awful July 3rd. I also vividly remember utterly shameless Congressmen, like California’s Bob Dornan, who literally screamed wild conspiracy theories on the House Floor of how the dastardly Iranians had “deliberately” flown a plane towards the Vincennes with a load of dead bodies, intending to score a propaganda win.
Later, credible international and US inquiries demonstrated that essentially every Iranian claim at the time, save one, was correct. The only thing the Iranians subsequently couldn’t demonstrate was that the US intended to shoot down a civilian plane. Never mind the dishonor brought upon the American navy at the time; the US Vincennes commander – Will Rogers (sic!) – was promoted, not court-martialed.
Some in the Navy today remain willfully clueless. About three years ago, a Naval ROTC commander here at the University of Virginia bluntly told me that if he had been in command on the Vincennes in 1988, he’d have done the same thing and would do so again today. I worry some of his students might now be in decision-making roles on ships in the Persian Gulf today.
Senator Webb doesn’t want to see a repeat of the Vincennes tragedy in a hair-trigger Persian Gulf. More fundamentally, Senator Webb intends to prevent any incidents, accidental or deliberate, from becoming pretexts for Administration neocons to drag the US into a war with Iran, without prior and sober Congressional review:

“These circumstances – the stated desire of many connected to this Administration to invade Iran, the saber-rattling rhetoric, the strategic miscalculations in Iraq – call for this Congress to formalize an historical mandate that in recent years has been lost to the public’s understanding. Quite simply, it is the constitutional obligation of the Administration to obtain congressional approval in order to commence military action against another country, except under very limited circumstances. This is the very process that our founding fathers envisioned.

Founders indeed! Imagine, a rising American political leader invoking our founding fathers on how best to engage the modern post-9/11 world…. (Pardon my excitement: what’d you expect from a Jefferson Fellow?)

“In fact, the records from the Constitutional Convention in August, 1787 make this abundantly clear. There was much debate during this Convention regarding how much authority should be in the hands of the president with respect to actually initiating military action. The Convention’s participants carefully decided that the president should not be given the power to decide with whom this nation should go to war, or to undertake aggressive actions without the consent of the Congress. The president’s powers to initiate military action were to be for the purpose of repelling sudden attacks – which is the language I have included in this legislation.
“As Constitutional Convention delegate James Wilson explained to the Pennsylvania ratifying convention: “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress…”

Webb could also have cited then Ambassador Thomas Jefferson’s famous 1789 letter to James Madison as the Constitution was being debated, the one that was pleased to observe that an effective check on “the dog of war” had been crafted to transfer the power of letting that horrendous dog loose “from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.”
Webb then turns the focus to the present:

“To state the obvious, Mr. President, Iran is not Iraq. And the President has no authority to begin unilateral military operations against Iran. In this regard, I would strongly urge my colleagues to consider that the issue before us is not the politics of Iran, but the proper procedures with respect to how we, as a government, lead the United States.

I have a quibble with Senator Webb here. Yes, the difference should be obvious: Iran is not Iraq. An authorization to wage war on Iraq shouldn’t be a carte blanche to go after the next target on the neocon hit list – Iran.
Yet perhaps Jim Webb is not a country music fan. Consider that tens of millions of Americans can still sing the lyrics to the mesmerizing and award-winning 2003 ballad by Allan Jackson, about “Where were you when the world stopped turning?” Jackson’s chorus includes this telling refrain:

“I’m just a singer of simple songs
I’m not a real political man

I watch CNN but I’m not sure I can tell you
The difference in Iraq and Iran”

Come to think of it, I (reluctantly) watch CNN too, and of late, I undersand why the average American will still have little idea what the difference is in the hands of “Blitzer media.” Yesterday’s cardboard enemy is now today’s, and the neocons and their media stooges are still banking on such American ignorance.
Yet Webb has a higher opinion of the American people and their capacity, like their leaders, to wake-up and learn. Amen to that. As such, the point bears repeating: Iran is not Iraq.
Here’s the rest of the Webb statement. It’s so profoundly important, as a matter of Constitutional principle, that I refrain from deleting anything – not even the puzzling second to last paragraph:

“As such, it is far less a matter of possible differences between Republicans and Democrats than it is our mutual concern for protecting the rightful place of the legislative branch in determining the interests of the country and the possible consequences of further military action. In this regard, I would like to point out that the principal sponsor of similar legislation in the other body is Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican from North Carolina.
“On the one hand, the Administration assures us that it has no intention of launching military operations against Iran. On the other, the Administration tells us that all options remain on the table, at a time when our military buildup in the region continues to grow rapidly. And while we see encouraging new diplomatic initiatives with respect to Iraq, it is important that we clarify, formally, the perimeter of our immediate military interests in the Middle East.
“It is time, Mr. President, that we move forward to end our military involvement in Iraq, and the path to doing so is not to widen the war into Iran. Proper, robust diplomacy will enable us to bring greater stability to the region, to remove the American military from Iraq, to increase our ability to defeat the forces of international terrorism, and, finally, to focus on the true strategic challenges that face us around the world.
“I believe the American people will welcome this legislation. This Administration has used force recklessly, choosing the military option again and again while never matching the quality of our military’s performance with robust, creative diplomacy. Furthermore, the President’s “signing statement” accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.
“In signing the 2002 Iraq resolution, the President denied that the Congress has the power to affect his decisions when it comes to the use of our military. He shrugged off this resolution, stating that on the question of the threat posed by Iraq, his views and those of the Congress merely happened to be the same. He characterized the resolution as simply a gesture of additional support, rather than as having any legitimate authority. He stated, “my signing this resolution does not constitute any change in … the President’s constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests…”
“This is a sweeping assertion of powers that leaves out virtually nothing. It is a far different matter than repelling an immediate attack, or conducting a war that has been authorized by the Congress. Let’s just match up a couple of these words. The President is saying, for instance, that he possesses the authority to use force to “deter … threats to U.S. interests.” How do you use force to “deter” a threat, rather than preventing or responding to it? And what kind of “U.S. interest” is worthy of the use of force? And, most importantly, how do these vague terms fit into the historically accepted notions of a Commander in Chief’s power to repel attacks, or to conduct military operations once they have been approved by the Congress?
“Mr. President, during our recent hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I asked both the Secretary of State and the Deputy Secretary of State for clarification of this paragraph in the President’s signing statement. My question was whether this Administration believes it has the authority to conduct unilateral military operations against Iran in the absence of a direct attack or a compelling, immediate threat without the consent of the Congress. Both wrote me lengthy letters in reply, but neither could give me a clear responses. The situation that we now face is that the Administration repeatedly states that it seeks no war with Iran, at the same time it claims the authority to begin one, and at the same time it continues a military buildup in the region.
“The legislation I introduce today is intended to clarify this ambiguity. In so doing, the Congress will be properly restating its constitutional relationship with the executive branch. The Congress will be reinstituting its historical role as it relates to the conduct of foreign policy. And the Congress will be reassuring the American people that there will be no more shooting from the hip when it comes to the gravely serious question of when we send our military people into harm’s way.
“Mr. President I would like to emphasize that this bill will not take any military options off of the table. Nor will it tie the hands of the Administration if our military forces are actually attacked from Iranian soil or territorial waters, or by forces that retreat into Iranian territory. Nor does this legislation let Iran off the hook in terms of our insistence that Iran become a more responsible nation, including our positions regarding Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
“I was one of the early voices warning that in terms of national security, Iran was a far greater threat than Iraq. This was one of the reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Again, all of the options regarding Iran remain on the table. The question is in what context these options should be debated, alongside other options designed to eventually open up Iran and bring it responsibly into the world community. In my view, and in terms of the constitutional process, absent a direct attack or a clearly imminent threat, the place for that debate is here in the open forum of the Congress, not in some closed-door meeting at the White House.
“Mr. President, it is my hope that we can take up this necessary legislation either in the format in which I have introduced it today, or as an amendment to the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental Appropriations bill, which we will consider in the next few weeks. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and welcome their support.

I gasped a bit on the above references to Iran being, relatively a “far greater threat than Iraq” or to keeping “all options regarding Iran on the table.” Perhaps such comments help protect Webb’s flanks against charges of being “soft” on Iran. It then leaves Webb room to articulate the case for why the US should endeavor to negotiate with Iran as an equal – one that should be enticed to become a cooperative member of the international community, much as we did with China over the past 35 years.
Lead on Senator Webb.
Press Conferece Excerpts:
March 5, 2007 Monday
HEADLINE: SEN. JIM WEBB HOLDS A NEWS CONFERENCE ON IRAN
QUESTION: (about Iran not accepting UNSC Resolution 1737:) “How hopeful are you (about?) the diplomatic course?”

WEBB: Well, I think what we have to think about in terms of the situation with Iran is a way to bring Iran into the world community. And that does not mean that we should take a step back from any of the positions that we have with respect to that journey. It’s just that we have to open up different ways to do it. And I don’t think that you can bring a country into the world community by not talking to it.
And my best historical — recent historical example on that is China. When you go back to 1971, China had a number of parallels to Iran today. It was a rogue nation. It had nuclear weapons. It was constantly spouting forward a lot of inflammatory rhetoric. It had an American war on its border that it was actively assisting. And we took measures to bring China into the world community, arguably as a responsible member of the world community.
So what I’m saying here today is clearly that we should not give up any of our positions diplomatically with respect to Iran, but that I believe it is not in the power of the president himself to decide to take unilateral military action there. He needs to come to the Congress, and we need to look at all these issues as a government.

QUESTION: “Jane Harman, Democrat from California, said recently even though {that she preferred?} to solve this issue diplomatically, but she doesn’t think the military option should be off the table.”

WEBB: I said three times in my hearings no options are off the table. The question is whether the executive branch, in and of itself, should have the power to commence a military action in the absence of direct self-defense, and I don’t believe that they do. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that. And we have the authority, as appropriators, to make sure that doesn’t happen. We need to step forward as a full government here.

QUESTION: (about the allegations of Iranian components in weapons used against Americans)

WEBB: … “And with respect to the specific issue that you asked about, which is the possibility of Iranian weapon systems being used in Iraq and those sorts of things, I think what we’re seeing — if this is true — what we’re seeing is sort of an inevitability with these countries around Iraq in some way playing under the table with respect to ethnic groups that they happen to support.
I’ve often said that I was shot at a lot in Vietnam as a Marine, and there wasn’t a weapon that was used against me that hadn’t been made in China or Eastern Europe. But that doesn’t elevate that situation diplomatically to the point that on that basis alone we should have taken military action against China.”

(This is a rather “realist” response, suggesting that even if Iranian arms have found their ways into neighboring Iraq, well, we shouldn’t be that surprised, and in any case, what of it? Webb then discussed political prospects for the bill, noting again that it might be attached as an Amendment to an Appropriations Bill.)
QUESTION: (regarding the possibility of Iran directly attacking the US and if Webb’s bill would constrain the President then, Webb neatly changes the focus of the question….)

WEBB: My belief is that we should never underestimate the potential that Iran might act irresponsibly. But, at the same time, you can go all the way back to ’01, after we invaded Afghanistan, and Iran was willing to cooperate under certain circumstances.
So I think we’ve had enough signals from Iran over the past several years that in some way balance — counterbalance the rhetoric that spews out of a few people there. And my hope is that we can calm this down a bit, we can calm these issues down a bit, make sure the Congress is directly involved, along with the executive branch, in our decision of where we’re going to go from here, and hopefully, over a period of time, bring Iran into the world community. That should be our goal.

Comment: Webb has been well briefed. Notice that he can well discern between Ahmadinejad’s rantings and a much larger pattern of “signals.” Good for Webb. Webb later responded to more questions about what Iranian actions might permit the President to act without Congress:
QUESTION: Senator, if U.S. forces were to discover IEDs being manufactured in Iran, that were being transported into Iraq, to be used against us, does that qualify under one of your exceptions here, could we take out that IED plant? Or does that mean we can attack (inaudible)?

WEBB: Well, you know, it’s always dangerous to go into what-ifs. Ronald Reagan never answered a what-if question in his entire political career.
But in that specific scenario, I would say that’s very similar to what we were seeing in China during the Vietnam War. The fact that different countries manufacture weapon systems is not in and of itself a justification for military action. But the way that this bill is drafted there is room for the administration to come to the Congress, even in that sort of a scenario, and discuss it.
WEBB: What this bill basically says, is unless you’ve been attacked from — if you’ve been attacked from Iranian soil, you can directly respond to the attack. If you’re about to get attacked, you can preempt that attack. If you’re attacked and troops retreat into Iranian soil, you can continue that in hot pursuit, directly focused tactically. Or if you’re conducting intelligence activities, I don’t want to affect our ability to do that.
That’s it. Anything else, I’m not saying it’s off the table, I’m saying the administration should cooperate with the Congress and let’s speak as one government.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask about the presence of carriers in and around the Persian Gulf. Do you believe that that is helping to deter Iran (inaudible)?

WEBB: You know, when I was secretary of the Navy, aircraft carriers didn’t even operate in the Persian Gulf because it’s such a small area that the radius of operations always has the potential for some sort of accidental conflict. Now we have two of them in there.
I’m not going to stand up here and tell the United States military how to conduct its operations. This really isn’t the purpose of my briefing. But, you know, one way or the other, I’m not sure that that is affecting Iranian diplomatic gestures in a positive way.
I think if the United States decided to, there are many, many different ways that it could commence military action against Iran, even if you don’t have aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. The question is the conditions under which we would do that, and that’s where this bill goes.
This bill basically says the executive branch, this presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own. It’s not the way the Constitution was designed, and we need the Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities, absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat.

Well said Senator Webb. Therein is the key to what is forcing the looming Constitutional showdown with George III. Its credibility is ruined on matters of war. It doesn’t deserve to be “trusted.” In such situations, that’s exactly why the founders established Congress as the check on the dog of war.