The 2006 MilBloggies Are Open
Panasonic Toughbook Saves Paratrooper's Life?

Permission to whack Iran? Granted, but should we?

How many positions on this war and presidential power is Hillary going to go through between now and her loss to Obama in the primaries? She is rapidly approaching the rarefied air of the elite ranks of flip-floppers usually inhabited by F Jacques Kerry. Hillary is attempting to hem the President in regarding his options in response to Iran making war on us in Iraq.

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization," Mrs. Clinton said [yesterday]. "Nor should the president think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority."

The problem for Hilly is that she supported her hubby's little "war" in Kosovo, which Congress not only didn't authorize but more or less actively opposed. So now let's look at W's options given that Iran is actively making war on us in Iraq. And we can dispense with the idea that Qods is some sort of rogue element operating without the consent of the government. Please, this is  totalitarian regime and Qods is it's designated troublemaker, that is why they were created, to export Islamism. A longer look at the use of force against Iran after the jump.

Mrs. Clinton defended the Kosovo campaign in a speech on October 10, 2002, before casting her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. "We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak," she said in the 2002 speech. Milosevic died in prison in The Hague in 2006.

How many positions on this war and presidential power is Hillary going to go through between now and her loss to Obama in the primaries? She is rapidly approaching the rarefied air of the elite ranks of flip-floppers usually inhabited by F Jacques Kerry. Hillary is attempting to hem the President in regarding his options in response to Iran making war on us in Iraq.  W ought to get some credit for the diplomatic way he is refusing to directly implicate Iran's leadership, I assume he is covering for Condi as she does some formal lying in formal wear. Contrary to the conventional wisdom we are talking with Iran, but more importantly with those folks who have actual influence with them. W is talking nice to ensure that we allow them the opportunity to convince Iran to act more amiably. I am not hopeful that they will, but it is the proper way to act multi-laterally and diplomatically.

What Hilly would love to say is that W cannot act against Iran without Congress authorizing it. That is debatable if you are talking about a pre-emptive invasion to enact regime change or interdict their nuclear program, but it is absolutely wrong in regards to Iran's acts of war against US forces in Iraq. It is accepted that Qods Force is operating in Iraq and supplying many modern weapons to the bad guys including shaped charge IEDs, .50 cal sniper rifles, and quite possibly anti-aircraft missiles. These actions against our forces give the President all the justification he needs to drop some scunion on the Iranians pursuant to his authority to conduct the Iraq war. Congress voted him their approval of:

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
            (1) defend the national security of the United States
        against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
            (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
        resolutions regarding Iraq.

Actions he determines to be necessary to defend against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. In this case the threat is that leaving a weak Iraqi government unsupported would certainly threaten our national security as Al Qaeda declares victory and Iran continues it's attempts to dominate the region and create another client state in Iraq. The authority there is pretty explicit, but even absent that acts of war against US forces anywhere may be replied to without a Congressional resolution. And as noted before plenty of Presidents have acted against threats absent Congress' stamp of approval.

The question here should not be does the President have the authority to act against anyone, anywhere making war on us, he does in spades, the question should be is it wise to do so in Iran or to limit actions to Iranian perfidy inside Iraq. I think starting with Iraq is wise and I hope we are working overtime to scarf up some more Iranian materiel and even better a couple of these Qods weasels would be nice. The next step is some explosions just over the border in Iran, where the bombs killing our troops are being made, and the killers rest and refit. Maybe a special J-DAM welcome for Mookie at his vacation villa too, if you don't mind.

Comments