Posted by: bridget | 24 March 2007

House Votes to Bring Troops Home

The House voted, by a 218 to 212 margin, to bring the troops home from Iraq next year.  There’s a few things wrong with this picture: 1. Congress may fund a war or refuse to fund it, but it does not micromanage it; and 2. ah, next year – just in time to ensure that the logical consequences do not affect Democrats in the 2008 elections.

The Executive Branch is charged with being the Commander in Chief of the Army.  Congress is not without power: it must declare war and continue to fund the army at two-year intervals.  Should Congress desire to undercut the Iraq war efforts, it may not bring troops home, require that some troops remain and some come home, or otherwise micromanage the Army.  It may, however, vote to stop funding the effort.  Congress has the power of the purse; the Executive has the power of the sword.  Congress may not remove the sword from the hands of the Executive simply because it would prefer to use that power instead of its own.

If Leftists succeed in their death wish for Iraqis, the country will devolve into violence and anarchy quickly.  Should the troops be removed now, the results of this insane policy will be blindingly obvious by the 2008 elections, and voters would send Democrats back home.  The policy of changing “immediate troop redeployment” to “sometime next year” is nothing but an attempt to win votes at the expense of the Iraqi people.



  1. Some in the Legislative have been eyeing that sword for awhile and wondering idly if they were to snatch it and sell it off, how many votes could they buy with the money.

    Nice post.

  2. Thanks for stopping in, Hydralisk!

    Good point re: votes. There’s very little check on the legislature to prevent them from usurping Executive authority. Too bad they are spending their time micromanaging the war instead of, oh, doing their jobs.

  3. Unless we count creating subsidies for shellfish and peanut farmers.

  4. Yuck! Heaven forbid that businesses absorb, oh, I don’t know, normal risks associated with being in business, like declining sales. Are we really at that stage where we think we can legislate away any problems that people may have?

    I’m appalled. Thank you for sharing that, though.

  5. Excellent post. Except:

    “If Leftists succeed in their death wish for Iraqis, the country will devolve into violence and anarchy quickly.”

    I really don’t think that Iraq needs to devolve at all to reach a state of violence and anarchy. That’s not to say that things would not get worse, but let’s recognize the failed state status that already exists there. Furthermore, your suggestion that the US should stay in Iraq must be based on a belief that we can help improve the situation. I don’t know where you draw such optimism from… Also, the vast majority of Iraqis (the Kurds being the only exception) want us to leave. So what right do we have to stay? It would kind of be like the MA government forcing health care on citizens that think they are better off without it… Libertarianism can stretch beyond national boundaries.

    I know I just said this, but I really do like your blog. Don’t let us lefties get away with any of our unreasoned utopianism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: