Has Bush Already Launched Another War?
This report wouldn’t be taken as seriously if it wasn’t coming from a writer with as much credibility and excellent sources as Steve Clemons, who writes:
Did the President Declare “Secret War” Against Syria and Iran?Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.
The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.
Clemons writes that the tip off may have come during George Bush’s largely panned address on his new Iraq policy. Of course, there are several questions here, such whether if these operations do happen they’re going be big or small, involve major military tactics or be more like interceptions of funding and arms. Read Clemons’ post for the details. He also writes towards the end:
But what is disconcerting is that some are speculating that Bush has decided to heat up military engagement with Iran and Syria — taking possible action within their borders, not just within Iraq.Some are suggesting that the [Iran] Consulate raid [conducted in Iraq] may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran — to generate a casus belli for further American action.
If this is the case, the debate about adding four brigades to Iraq is pathetic. The situation will get even hotter than it now is, worsening the American position and exposing the fact that to fight Iran both within the borders of Iraq and into Iranian territory, there are not enough troops in the theatre.
If this happens fasten your safety belts. It would be a rejection not only of the concept of the executive branch even partially consulting with the legislative branch, but be a virtual repudiation of the Jim Baker-headed Iraq Study Group that advocated talking with Iran and Syria versus engaging them militarily and more than ever Bush would be governing with the support of his now-smaller partisan base.
You could see the seeds of major future conflicts Congress will have with an administration that throws down the gauntlet more than it extends olive branches in Senate hearings yesterday:
Bush sparked worries that the conflict may widen by his comment that “we’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”U.S. officials said their plan was to disrupt such networks while staying inside Iraq, but their comments did not appear to mollify senior U.S. lawmakers.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks to stamp out militant networks in Iran and Syria.
“If the president concluded he had to invade Iran … or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that,” said Biden.
“I just want to set that marker,” added the Delaware Democrat, who later wrote Bush a letter asking for an “authoritative answer” on whether he believed U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria without congressional authorization.
In a testy hearing about Bush’s new plan for Iraq, Rice said she did not want to speculate on the president’s constitutional authority for such action.
“Obviously, the president isn’t going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq,” she said.
Right now you get the feeling there are assumptions on both sides. Assumptions by administration critics that Bush & Co are going to clone the approach used to get the U.S. into Iraq and go after Iran and Afghanistan. Assumptions by the administration that when critics ask questions they’re trying to curtail their power.
But the bottom line will be: ARE there plans to effectively open up more war fronts? HAVE these fronts been in-effect opened already? And, if so, will members of both parties give up Congressional powers that were once so jealously protected and exercised by members of Congress back in the days when Congress actually exercised advise, consent and oversight?
And, if all that is true, how will this play out with a public that the very latest poll taken right after the President’s speech was unmoved by Bush’s arguments — leaving Bush as an increasingly unpopular president, someone who has split his own party, presiding over an unpopular war that has his name written all over it? Would there be political, institutional or constitutional consequences? If so, how would that alter how policy is made in the U.S.? If not, what would that mean to how policies are made in the future?
H/t HinesSight
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Has Bush Already Launched Another War?”
If Steve Clemons, who has a lot of Washington insider contacts and is usually a very reliable source, says that, there must be something to it. Where there’s smoke there’s fire…
I’m guessing you mean Iran and Syria, since we are already in Afghanistan.
I find this a little hard to swallow. It seems imposible to me that Bush would risk war with Iran AND Syria for the sake of….what? I do understand the need to get rid of supply networks and the frustration of respecting borders when the enemy doesn’t, but the posibility of full out war with these countries cannot be contemplated. Forget 20.000, we’d need at least half of our armed forces to handle (if we could) Iran Syria AND Iraq. We’d have to use large scale bombings, with the resultant very high civilian deaths, which would kill any and all support we might have in the world. Even England wouldn’t stand by us then.
I know the posibility of such a war is small, but if there’s any adminitration willing to casually play with the posibility it’s this one. They’re playing with matches in a puddle of gasoline.
Maybe Steve thinks he’s working with the Japanese and trading the Afghanistan secret war for the one, now, in Syria and Iran? It’s all dems making money. Some even trace their families and servie to Kennedy! I thought it was supposed to be like Vietnam or did they trade for Iraq?
Lynx- What about the Israeli lobby and remaining neocons who have been urging Bush to take out Iran’s nuclear sites, and weaken their support of Hezbollah before he leaves office? I’ve heard a lot of chatter about how he might be the last president with the political will to get this done.
Bush would have to be insane to do that — so it’s a virtual certainty.
Last year the British accused the Iranians of supplying militias with weapons. They left a base and patrolled the border to find the weapons. The results – the British could find no offical Iranians supplying weapons.
W and Condi are selling a lie just like WMD’s and al-Qaeda in Iraq. This time the press and public won’t buy into the propaganda – lets hope W doesn’t attack anyway.
The British claimed that the Iranians were supplying weapons in the South. They closed a base and patrolled the desert and marsh in the South to try and find these networks. The results – no organized smuggling of arms – ZERO.
WP Article 1
WP Article 2
It’s 2002 all over again, will the MSM and the public buy into the ‘cherry pickin’ again?
The British found no evidence of official Iranian smuggling in the South. They patrolled the desert and marsh and found – NADA. The Cheney OSP crowd is doing it again. To bad his daughter isn’t there to help the spin.
The Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions need to be taken down. If that in fact is Bush’s plan, then good for him. I’m glad to see he’s not caving in to the pressure to adopt the ridiculously absurd baker commission report recommendations.
I’m really staring to hope Laura is being sarcastic.
If Bush does this he’s been put on notice as of yesturday what the outcome will be….impeachment. Biden hinted at it, and also let on that there are enough congressmen left and right, already privately talking about this very subject in regards to this story to inact the measure.
Kim, I have the feeling that that lobby has been preassuring to a greater or lesser extent for war against Iran for years and years, why would now be different? I dunno, maybe that could contribute, but I have my doubts about the quantity of individual power Bush actually has. Or maybe I just hope he doesn’t really have his finger on the button, so I can sleep at night.
War with Iran would be a very, very, very baaaaad idea. In the best of cases (if we had no OTHER wars to deal with) it would be complicated, and would have to be based on REAL evidence of an actual or imminent attack. There must be Republicans out there that know that this would be, in addition for terrible for the country, very bad for the party, and would think they are trying to make their voices heard as well.
Pyst, you’re optimism is refreshing. Unfortunately, I’m fairly certain Bush could propose wiping out the entire Muslim world with nukes and interning every Muslim American and Laura would break out the pom-poms. That’s just how extremists are. I’m fairly hard on Islamist issues, but I’m a puffy sugar-coated tye-dye liberal on the matter compared to her.
Lynx- I agree that it would be a very bad idea, but I’ve always believed from my reading that Iran was supposed to be the Axis of Evil that fell after Iraq. We were supposed to be in Iraq for a few months, and then move on to Iran. The fact that its a complicated move with horrible repercussions has occurred to most analysts, but there were also complicated repercussions with Iraq, and that did not stop Bush. I think he and Cheney were mentally unhinged by 9/11 and Katrina, lol.
LOL Lynx that description of yourself on the issue was priceless.