Feingold: The Voice Of Americans Must Be Heard

By Jonathan Bronstein, Talk Radio News

Since World War II, not once has Congress utilized its Constitutional right to declare an official act of war. Though this violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973, which restricted Presidential power in times of war, America still goes to war.

However, now America goes to war without the consent of the representative body of the people.

“Since the War Powers Resolution was enacted, several presidents have introduced troops into battle without obtaining prior approval of Congress,” said Senator Russell Feinfold (D-W.I.).

“The simple solution of this problem would be for the president to honor the Constitution and seek the prior approval of Congress in such scenarios,” he said

In an effort to make the president more accountable to the American people, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations heard the recommendations of the National War Powers Commission, created in February 2007, report: the War Powers Consultation Act. This commission was led by two former Secretaries of State James A. Baker, III and Warren Christopher, and they sought to change what they believed to be the flawed War Powers Act of 1973.

The main issue with the War Powers Act of 1973, is that this debate will linger until a decision is made. “Only a Constitutional Amendment or a decisive Supreme Court opinion is likely to resolve the debate, and neither of these is likely to be forth coming anytime soon,” said Christopher.

Therefore, this commissions goal was not to reform the War Powers Act, but to create a completely knew draft.

One of the main recommendations of the committee was that the President must have an advisory body, which must be consulted before any soldiers are sent into battle.

Yet, such a move frightened Feingold because “If this bill had been in place before the war in Iraq, President Bush could have begun the war after consulting with a ‘gang’ of twelve members of Congress, thereby depriving most of the senators in this room of the ability to participate in these consultations.”

Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) voiced similar concern about the role of an advisory committee and the effect that it would have on Congressional influence, “I think in the process of giving the President one place to go (for information), I think that the other (Congressional) committees of jurisdiction end up becoming more irrelevant.

“The decision to go to war is the most profound ever made by the government,” said Feingold. “History teaches that we must have the support of the American people if we are to successfully prosecute our military operations.”

So while the current War Powers Act is flawed, Feingold worried that the new War Powers Consultation Act committed just as large of a sin--silencing the voice of the American people.

Congressmen urge Obama to reconsider troop surge in Afghanistan

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Today a league of congressmen sent a letter to President Obama asking him to reconsider his military policy in Afghanistan before committing 17,000 new troops in a surge. The letter said, “As the goals of our seven year military involvement remain troublingly unclear, we urge you to reconsider such a military escalation”. This letter came from a bipartisan group of 14 members of Congress.

Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said that he is “perplexed” by the president’s troop increase, considering that his administration has stated it is presently reviewing its strategy in Afghanistan. Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said that America is getting deeper into a “war without end” and that we need an exit strategy in Afghanistan.

Both Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) expressed concern on waging an endless war in such a time of economic peril. Kucinich said what the country needs is a healthcare surge, a home ownership surge, and an employment surge.

Secretary Gates: Combat troops out by August 2010, all troops out by 2011

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

Following President Barack Obama’s address at Camp Lejeune, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates hosted a conference call where he discussed Obama’s strategy to end the war in Iraq.

In his opening comments Secretary Gates said: “The atmosphere here at Camp Lejeune for the speech was very warm, very enthusiastic and I would also say that the welcome has been pretty extraordinary.”

“On the substance I am obviously very supportive of the option the President has chosen and the decision he has made as is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Frankly, this is where both the Chairman and I thought this should come out and it was a very thorough and deliberative process where a lot of different options and a lot of different analysis were examined,” said Gates.

Asked about Obama’s statement that all troops would be out of Iraq by 2011, Secretary Gates said: “Under the terms of the status of forces agreement which is what we are operating under now all U.S. forces must be out by the end of 2011. It will require a new agreement, a new negotiation, almost certainly at Iraqi initiative to provide for some presence beyond the end of 2011. So in the absence of that agreement and the absence of that negotiation, for such an agreement, it is in keeping with the sofa to say definitively that we will be out by 2011.”

Asked what would happen if Iraqi forces asked for the U.S. military to remain in Iraq to assist with training and strengthening, Gates said: “It’s a hypothetical the Iraqis have not said anything about that at this point...My own view would be, that, we should be prepared to have some very modest size presence, for training and helping them with their new equipment and providing perhaps intelligence support, beyond that.”

In his address Obama said that all combat troops would be out of Iraq by August 31, 2010. Asked whether the remaining non-combat troops would have combat capability, Gates said: “Those that are left will have a combat capability...there will be target counter-terrorism organizations, there will be continued embeds with some of the Iraqi forces, training capacities...but the units will have gone and the mission will have changed, so the notion of being engaged in combat, in the way we have been up until now, will be completely different.”

US' biggest weakness may lie in outer space

"We have to be incredibly lucky to avoid a major race in space in the years to come", stated Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Tellis spoke at a discussion hosted by The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on whether we can keep space from becoming the next 'shooting gallery'.

Tellis also stated that powerful nations, most notably China, view the US dependence on space for intelligence and data as a key vulnerability. As a result, China's national military strategy calls for the interdiction of US space capabilities as a way of equalizing the advantages the US enjoys on the conventional battlefield. He concludes by stating that, in his opinion, the US's best solution to the problem is to utilize a plan of deterrence coupled with sufficient capability for retaliation that would absorb the initial attack, and make the aggressor believe that an attack is not worth initiating.

President of the Henry Stimson Center Michael Krepon takes a much different approach. He pointed to the classic Cold War rivalry between the US and Soviet Union. Despite their competition, both nations felt compelled to sign the Outer Space Treaty, which formed the basis for international space law. Because both nations used space for intelligence gathering, both felt compelled to agree to limitations and practices that protected their own interests. With this in mind, Krepon endorsed a plan involving a code of conduct for outer space interaction for all, which he feels would prevent aggression between states. Krepon also stated that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has endorsed such a code.

Iranian trained special militias are biggest threat to Iraq

From the beginning, we have been a team, and our mission is to get rid of all the militias and all insurgents in Iraq, Major General Ali Salih Farhood Oothman, Commander of the 8th Iraqi Army Division, said through an interpreter during a live-via-satellite Pentagon press briefing from Camp Victory in Baghdad. Oothman, head of a division that covers 24% of Iraq consisting of five Iraqi provinces including the Iranian border and Saudi Arabian border, said that his responsibilities in the area are complex because of al-Qaida. However, al-Qaida is not his greatest threat.

The greatest threat according to Oothman is the special militias. In his area of operation, he has both al-Qaida and special militias. In the capital cities of the provinces, he says, there are the militias. The reason for the higher threat level, is that the special groups are trained and equipped by the Iranians. Those groups don’t face you, he said, they use IEDs (improvised explosive devices), or they “stab us in the back” with their politicians. Because the militias are not able to face the Iraqi Army directly, they go to Iran, where they are trained, equipped, and then sent back in to assassinate leaders.

Present as well was Army Major General Michael Oates, Commander of the Multi-National Division Center and the 10th Mountain Division. He agreed with Oothman’s assessment of the Iraq Army’s capabilities, stating that the Army, although much improved and better off than in 2006, demonstrates that there is a need to raise the comparable level of operations that they are responsible for. Four things, Oates said, are needed: we need to work on improving their [Iraqi Army] forces, civics courses need to be given to learn how to assess Iraq’s civilian needs, we need to go after AQI (al-Qaida in Iraq), and we need to reduce the Iranian influence within Iraq.

The topic brought up most frequently during the brief was the inadequate training and supplies. Oates pointed out that the Iraqi Army has been fighting “right out of the box” since the beginning, and was never able to be properly trained. Watching their [Iraqi] army operate, Oates said, he sees that they are very capable and they are seeking initiative in performing their own operations, but we [United States] still are providing valuable assistance. The Iraqi Army is “coming along” but they are not sophisticated with reconnaissance and surveillance. Professionalism is what is missing; the army went into combat with no training, they’ve been in constant combat since 2003, and it’s been tough for them to learn logistics.

Oothman said that since the beginning, they had to work to train their officers. They conducted several training services for their officers, and they send medics to learn some training and they are more professional than they used to be. But to be independent in this battle, Oothman said, we have to not only learn administrative and logistical duties, but we need something else: medical facilities and garages to maintain our vehicles. 80% of these needs are met by coalition forces, and there is currently no plan to build a hospital or a garage.

The Iraqi Army is showing initiative, Oates said, I’m proud to serve with them and I’m here to provide whatever assistance I can. They are making huge strides. We [the United States] should be proud of our soldiers, and they are performing magnificently.