Does the Iraq War have an Expiration Date?
April 6th, 2008 by JAZZ SHAW
This weekend finds a dueling pair of highly interesting opinion pieces on the legality of the Iraq war after the ball drops in Time Square this New Years eve. They are found with Bruce Ackerman’s and Oona Hathaway’s column in the Washington post which is then challenged by Adam White at Slate Magazine. The theory put forth in the Post entry seems simple enough at first glance. There are two key bits of paperwork establishing the “legality” of the current occupation and both may have a finite – and already expired – period of viability.
The first is the Congressional joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
It allowed for the use of force only under two conditions.
The first has long since lapsed. It permitted the president to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” This threat came to an end with the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s government.
Instead, U.S. military intervention is authorized under the second prong of the 2002 resolution. This authorizes the president to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
Ackerman and Hathaway point out that the government of Iraq, under the direction of al-Maliki, can certainly not be considered a “threat to the security of the United States.” For the second condition, the current UN resolution expires on Dec. 31 of this year. Absent a new resolution, legal authorization for the war would seem to evaporate.
Adam White takes issue with this argument, going so far as to call it “silly” in the conclusion of his column. His fundamental premise appears to be that the presence of terrorists of various flavors inside the borders of Iraq (or perhaps supported by the government of Iraq) are all the justification the President needs, “so long as the President determines that military force is necessary and appropriate.” To wit, he cites two short passages from the original authorization resolution.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
I believe that there is something “silly” going on with the analysis in the Washington Post, but it’s not the portions with which Mr. White takes exception. The two short paragraphs are actually quite clear in both letter and intent. The first states, “Whereas members of al Qaida … are known to be in Iraq.” This proved to be false at the time of the document’s creation as has been recognized by George W. Bush and most of the members of his administration except the Vice President. This speaks to the basis of challenging nearly any legal document. If a child support case begins by saying, “Whereas Mr. Smith fathered a child with Mrs. Smith in March of 1997…” but later DNA testing reveals that Mrs. Smith actually conceived the child with Mr. Jones, the document is dead on arrival.
The second, “Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor…” is also rife with problems. The phrase quite obviously refers to the government of Iraq performing said harboring, not the geographical fact of terrorists residing within the borders. Should the administration attempt to make the claim that al-Maliki is aiding and harboring terrorists, we have bigger fish to fry than legal wrangling over resolutions and contracts.
The real problem with the Ackerman / Hathaway theory is that (legal legerdemain not withstanding) we can not realistically treat a war like a football game. A war which has been deemed – at least in some sentient circles – “legal” can not retroactively have a game clock assigned to it where the whistle blows, we check the final scores, shake hands and head to the showers. As I have noted before, even the most ardent opponents of the war (myself included) must recognize that disengaging from Iraq in any safe, sane fashion is going to take time. Even in the event of a 180 degree change of heart, President Bush couldn’t get us out entirely by the end of the year. Starting in January of next year, a president Obama or Hillary Clinton will be unable to do so by January of 2010 – at least not without terrifying levels of violence, chaos and gore.
If we must wrestle with the legality of the occupation, the clear choice is for a new resolution from the United Nations. This need not be an open ended ticket, but could be granted in one year blocks as the situation continues to ripen. This option is not only possible, but desirable, and I think deserves the support of Iraq war supporters and opponents alike.
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 6th, 2008 at 5:17 am and is filed under Withdrawal, Newsweek Blogitics, Nouri al-Maliki, George W. Bush, Iraq, War. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
