Tweet
San Jose Mercury News, CA
Oct 19 2007
Congress rashly meddles in foreign policy
By Victor Davis Hanson
Article Launched: 10/19/2007 01:31:33 AM PDT
The president establishes American foreign policy and is commander in
chief. At least that's what the Constitution states. Then Congress
oversees the president's policies by either granting or withholding
money to carry them out - in addition to approving treaties and
authorizing war.
Apparently, the founding fathers were worried about dozens of
renegade congressional leaders and committees speaking on behalf of
the United States and opportunistically freelancing with foreign
leaders.
In our past, self-appointed moralists - from Charles Lindbergh and
Joe Kennedy to Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson - have, from time to
time, tried to engage in diplomacy directly contrary to the
president's.
But usually Americans agree to let one elected president and his
secretary of state speak for the United States abroad. Then, if
they're displeased with the results, they can show it at the ballot
box every two years in national or midterm elections.
But recently, hundreds in Congress have decided that they're better
suited to handle international affairs than the State Department.
The U.S. Senate late last month passed a resolution urging the de
facto breakup of wartime Iraq into federal enclaves along sectarian
lines - even though this is not the official policy of the Bush
administration, much less the wish of a sovereign elected government
in Baghdad.
That Senate vote only makes it tougher for 160,000 American soldiers
to stabilize a unitary Iraq. And Iraqis I spoke with during my recent
trip to Iraq are confused over why the U.S. Congress would preach to
them how to split apart their own country.
Then, last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a
resolution condemning Turkey for genocide against the Armenian
people, atrocities committed nearly a century ago during the waning
years of the Ottoman Empire.
If the entire House approves the resolution, the enraged Ankara
government could do everything from invade Iraqi Kurdistan - in hot
pursuit of suspected Kurdish guerrillas - to curtail U.S. over-flight
privileges and restrict use of American military bases in Turkey.
This new falling-out could interfere with supplying our soldiers in
Iraq. And it complicates a myriad of issues, from the NATO alliance
to Turkey's bid to join the European Union.
The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year took
another hot-button foreign-policy matter into her own hands when she
made a special trip to reach out to Syria's strongman, Bashar Assad.
That visit to Damascus was played up in the government-run Syrian
press as proof that ordinary Americans don't feel that Syria is a
state sponsor of terrorism. Never mind that the Assad dictatorship
helps terrorists get into Iraq to kill American soldiers, is
suspected of involvement with the assassinations of journalists and
democratic leaders in Lebanon, and recently had bombed by the
Israelis a facility reported to contain a partially built nuclear
reactor.
What are we to make of a Congress that now wants to establish, rather
than just oversee, U.S. foreign policy? Can it act as a foil to the
president and so give our diplomats leverage abroad with wayward
nations: "We suggest you do x, before our volatile Congress demands
we do y?"
Maybe - but any good is vastly outweighed by the bad. Partisan
politics often drive these anti-administration foreign policies,
aimed at making the president look weak abroad and embarrassed at
home.
House representatives too often preach their own district politics,
less so the American people's interest as a whole. What might ensure
their re-election or win local campaign funds isn't necessarily good
for the United States and its allies.
And too often we see frustrated senators posture in debate during
televised hearings, trying out for the role of chief executive or
commander in chief. Most could never get elected president - many
have tried - but they seem to enjoy the notion that their own
under-appreciated brilliance and insight should supersede the
collective efforts of the State Department.
So they travel abroad, pass resolutions and pontificate a lot, but
rarely have to clean up the ensuing mess of their own freelancing of
American foreign policy.
Congress should stick to its constitutional mandate and quit the
publicity gestures. If it is unhappy with the ongoing effort to
stabilize a unified Iraq, then it should act seriously and vote to
cut off all funds and bring the troops home.
If the House wants to punish Turkey for denying that its Ottoman
forefathers engaged in a horrific genocide, then let congressional
members likewise deny funds for our military to stay among such a
genocide-denying amoral host.
If Speaker Pelosi believes that Syria is not a terrorist entity but a
country worth re-engaging diplomatically, then let her in mature
fashion introduce legislation that would resume full American
financial relations with our new partner, Damascus.
Otherwise, it's all talk - and dangerous talk at that.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ([email protected]) is a classicist and
historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c i_7222058
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Oct 19 2007
Congress rashly meddles in foreign policy
By Victor Davis Hanson
Article Launched: 10/19/2007 01:31:33 AM PDT
The president establishes American foreign policy and is commander in
chief. At least that's what the Constitution states. Then Congress
oversees the president's policies by either granting or withholding
money to carry them out - in addition to approving treaties and
authorizing war.
Apparently, the founding fathers were worried about dozens of
renegade congressional leaders and committees speaking on behalf of
the United States and opportunistically freelancing with foreign
leaders.
In our past, self-appointed moralists - from Charles Lindbergh and
Joe Kennedy to Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson - have, from time to
time, tried to engage in diplomacy directly contrary to the
president's.
But usually Americans agree to let one elected president and his
secretary of state speak for the United States abroad. Then, if
they're displeased with the results, they can show it at the ballot
box every two years in national or midterm elections.
But recently, hundreds in Congress have decided that they're better
suited to handle international affairs than the State Department.
The U.S. Senate late last month passed a resolution urging the de
facto breakup of wartime Iraq into federal enclaves along sectarian
lines - even though this is not the official policy of the Bush
administration, much less the wish of a sovereign elected government
in Baghdad.
That Senate vote only makes it tougher for 160,000 American soldiers
to stabilize a unitary Iraq. And Iraqis I spoke with during my recent
trip to Iraq are confused over why the U.S. Congress would preach to
them how to split apart their own country.
Then, last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a
resolution condemning Turkey for genocide against the Armenian
people, atrocities committed nearly a century ago during the waning
years of the Ottoman Empire.
If the entire House approves the resolution, the enraged Ankara
government could do everything from invade Iraqi Kurdistan - in hot
pursuit of suspected Kurdish guerrillas - to curtail U.S. over-flight
privileges and restrict use of American military bases in Turkey.
This new falling-out could interfere with supplying our soldiers in
Iraq. And it complicates a myriad of issues, from the NATO alliance
to Turkey's bid to join the European Union.
The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year took
another hot-button foreign-policy matter into her own hands when she
made a special trip to reach out to Syria's strongman, Bashar Assad.
That visit to Damascus was played up in the government-run Syrian
press as proof that ordinary Americans don't feel that Syria is a
state sponsor of terrorism. Never mind that the Assad dictatorship
helps terrorists get into Iraq to kill American soldiers, is
suspected of involvement with the assassinations of journalists and
democratic leaders in Lebanon, and recently had bombed by the
Israelis a facility reported to contain a partially built nuclear
reactor.
What are we to make of a Congress that now wants to establish, rather
than just oversee, U.S. foreign policy? Can it act as a foil to the
president and so give our diplomats leverage abroad with wayward
nations: "We suggest you do x, before our volatile Congress demands
we do y?"
Maybe - but any good is vastly outweighed by the bad. Partisan
politics often drive these anti-administration foreign policies,
aimed at making the president look weak abroad and embarrassed at
home.
House representatives too often preach their own district politics,
less so the American people's interest as a whole. What might ensure
their re-election or win local campaign funds isn't necessarily good
for the United States and its allies.
And too often we see frustrated senators posture in debate during
televised hearings, trying out for the role of chief executive or
commander in chief. Most could never get elected president - many
have tried - but they seem to enjoy the notion that their own
under-appreciated brilliance and insight should supersede the
collective efforts of the State Department.
So they travel abroad, pass resolutions and pontificate a lot, but
rarely have to clean up the ensuing mess of their own freelancing of
American foreign policy.
Congress should stick to its constitutional mandate and quit the
publicity gestures. If it is unhappy with the ongoing effort to
stabilize a unified Iraq, then it should act seriously and vote to
cut off all funds and bring the troops home.
If the House wants to punish Turkey for denying that its Ottoman
forefathers engaged in a horrific genocide, then let congressional
members likewise deny funds for our military to stay among such a
genocide-denying amoral host.
If Speaker Pelosi believes that Syria is not a terrorist entity but a
country worth re-engaging diplomatically, then let her in mature
fashion introduce legislation that would resume full American
financial relations with our new partner, Damascus.
Otherwise, it's all talk - and dangerous talk at that.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON ([email protected]) is a classicist and
historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/c i_7222058
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress