From Sacramento Area Peace Action

Q: Who has the power to end the Iraq war and occupation?

A: Either the President or Congress could end the occupation.  However, we know Bush is not going to end it, so Congress has to.  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies.  In response to presidential abuses of power in which troops were deployed in Vietnam without a declaration of war by Congress, Congress adopted the War Powers Act in 1973 which set a 60 day limit on the president’s ability to engage troops without Congressional authorization.

Q: Legally speaking, what does Congress need to do to end the occupation?

A: Congress needs to take two actions: 1) it needs to rescind the authorization (Public Law 107-243) it gave Bush under the War Powers Act in October 2002 to use military force against Iraq; and 2) it needs to stop funding the occupation.  Since the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, Congress has approved a total of $364 billion in funding for the continued assault on and occupation of Iraq. The most recent appropriation for $70 billion was made in the fall 2006. It is expected that Bush will request over $100 billion in supplemental funding for the occupation.

Q: What if Congress cuts funding and Bush leaves the troops is Iraq?

A:  Some members of Congress, including Rep. Doris Matsui, have said they can’t vote against funding because Bush would simply leave the troops in Iraq and their safety would be jeopardized.  Undoubtedly, Bush would try to leave troops in Iraq.  However, this would be temporary unless Congress abdicates it legislative role and fails to act upon its responsibilities as a check to the power of the Presidency.  The Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse”; Congress has the power to fund or not fund, not the President.  If Congress votes against funding for the occupation AND Bush defies them and orders the Pentagon to continue to keep troops in Iraq, then Congress will be obligated to take action against the president in order to uphold the Constitution.  Congress would have two options: to initiate impeachment proceedings OR to sue Bush under the terms of the War Powers Act to force a withdrawal from Iraq.

       The scenario would be the same if Congress repealed Bush’s authorization (PL 107-243) to have troops in Iraq.  Congress would have to take action against Bush if he refused to comply.  It is possible that Congress could vote against further funding and not repeal Public Law 107-243.  In this case, they should still be able to force Bush to comply because they control the money.

Q:  What if Congress asks Bush to withdraw troops and still votes for funding?

A:  Regardless of what other resolutions or bills it passes, if Congress votes to continue funding, that would give Bush authority to keep troops in Iraq and there would be no mechanism to force an end the occupation.  Unless Rep. Matsui agrees to vote against further funding, she is continuing to support the occupation.

Q:  If Congress forces an end to the war, wouldn’t troops be harmed?

A: The Pentagon does have the authority to transfer and reprogram funds within its regular appropriations budget, so that, even without additional funding, it could cover the cost of maintaining the troops until Congress were able to force the President to issue the order to withdraw them or remove him from office. 

Q:  What about supporting the troops and protecting troop safety?

A:   Many Congress members say that they want to support the troops.  In the first month following the beginning of this 110^th Congress, more than 100 U.S. troops died in Iraq and more than 1,000 were injured and thousands of Iraqis have died and been injured.  It is absurd to suggest that “supporting the troops” means leaving them in harms way; the only meaningful way to support and protect the troops is to bring them home.  It is equally absurd to say that leaving U.S. troops in Iraq helps the Iraqi people.  The Iraqis want the U.S. to leave; the occupation is fueling the violence and preventing the Iraqis from taking control of their country back.

Q:  Is it true that the troops don’t have enough protective armor?

A:  There have been many allegations about mismanagement of appropriated funds in Iraq, including huge overcharges by military contractors like Halliburton.  It is the Pentagon’s responsibility to provide adequate protective armor for the US military personnel in Iraq.  If the Pentagon is not doing so with the over $364 billion that Congress has already appropriated, including funds which were earmarked for this purpose, it is not going to happen with more money, either.  The best way to protect the troops is bring them home and let them begin what is likely for many to be long and painful process rehabilitation.

Q:  Can Congress stop Bush’s escalation (“surge”) of troops?

A:  The so-called surge to escalate the occupation by sending an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq is being accomplished by extending the tour of service of existing troops, also known as stop-loss.  These troops were scheduled to have been relieved by about-to-be deployed troops.  Instead, the old troops will stay, so the result will be a higher number of troops deployed.  Without taking away Bush’s authority to have troops in Iraq, it is difficult to see how Congress can control the troop levels.  Restricting already-appropriated funding so that it cannot be used for additional troops seems equally untenable given that the Pentagon can move funds as previously stated.

Q: What are the political considerations of ending the occupation?

A:  Practically speaking, to remove Bush’s authority to have troops in Iraq, legislation would have to be passed by both the House and Senate.  In the likely event of a Bush veto, a 2/3 override of both houses would be needed for passage.  However, either house could vote down the appropriations bill which would mean no funding.  In the past, money for the occupation has been combined with other funding requests.  However, Congress has and must exercise its power to refuse to consider legislation which bundles supplemental spending for the Iraq war with other supplemental spending needs so that occupation is considered separately.

Q: What is the enforcement power of resolutions being introduced to end the occupation or the escalation?

A: As in previous sessions of Congress, resolutions have been introduced which would direct the President to take various actions to move towards ending the occupation, including setting up time tables for withdrawal, etc.  Typically these resolutions are of an advisory nature, and will not get the troops out of Iraq.  Resolutions with the force of law would, as noted above, be subject to a likely Bush veto and require a 2/3 override in order to pass.  In contrast, ending funding would only require a 51% majority in the House.

Q:  How likely is it that Congress will take decisive action to end the occupation?

A:  As in Vietnam, when Congress and/or the President get enough pressure, most or all of the troops will be withdrawn.  The sooner all U.S. troops are removed, the fewer people will die and the sooner the Iraqi people can begin to rebuild their nation.  The timing and the partial versus complete removal will depend on a variety of factors, including public pressure to end the occupation and change our imperialistic U.S. foreign policy, resistance from troops themselves, economic pressures as the war debt increases, etc.

     The bottom line is that we the people must put direct pressure on our Congressional representatives.  We must make them feel our presence. An excellent example is the Peace-in which has been going on in Rep. Doris Matsui’s office since January 8.  For more information, check www.sacpeace.org or call 916-448-7157.

Q: What positions has Doris Matsui taken on the occupation of Iraq?

A:  As of mid-February, Rep. Matsui had signed on to one resolution (HJR 18) and one bill (HR 787) that ostensibly address ending the occupation; neither addresses funding.  HRJ 18 would redeploy troops elsewhere in the region, not bring them home.  HJR 18 also calls for a new U.S. military force to be created in the region; such a force could be available to Bush if he tries to invade Iran. 

       HR 787 calls for a protracted and incomplete redeployment of troops (to Afghanistan and other locations) from Iraq, allows Bush to halt the redeployment in renewable three month increments, and leaves an unspecified number of troops in Iraq indefinitely.  Congress does not have to approve the suspension of removing troops from Iraq, rather it would have to pass a resolution in order to get the redeployment moving again.  The wording of HR 787 turns reality on its head by specifying that troops can be allowed to stay IF the Iraqis meet certain standards set by the U.S.  The implication is that the Iraqis want the U.S. troops in their country, which flies in the face of what we know to be true, which is that the Iraqi people want the U.S. troops to leave.  In the same vein of falsifying reality, HR 787 also holds the Iraqis responsible for the damage the US has done to them. 

            Setting aside the ineffectiveness of HRJ 18 and HR 787, any bill which address ending the occupation would become meaningless if Congress votes to continue funding the occupation.