A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

In the news Tuesday were two seemingly unrelated stories about the heels of the proverbial loaf of war.

In an op-ed in The New York Times [1], two former secretaries of state revealed the findings of a bipartisan commission studying how the decision to go to war should be formed in this country. James Baker and Warren Christopher wrote that the University of Virginia's National War Powers Commission unanimously made their recommendation to replace the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

The 1973 resolution has been a point of contention between the executive and legislative branches since its inception. Many question its constitutionality and vague language makes enforcement of the resolution nearly impossible.

"When it comes to war, Americans deserve better than a law that is ineffective and ignored. They deserve a law that will encourage future presidents and Congresses to work together to protect our nation," they wrote.

The commission's proposal does not differ much in technical terms from the original resolution, due to constraints placed on the declaration of war by the Constitution. Instead, they suggest the president be required to have meaningful consultations with a joint Congressional committee before entering a "significant armed conflict."

Also in The New York Times [2], Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki publicly confirmed his (and the Iraqi parliament's) desire for a short-term security agreement between his country and the U.S. He also hinted that the U.S. government should start drawing up a timetable for withdrawal, a proposal opposed by the Bush Administration and Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.

The current U.S. authority is under a UN mandate due to expire in 2009, and negotiations have been ongoing to secure an extension. The negotiations have been contentious, with disagreements between the Iraqi and U.S. governments over immunity for American security contractors, among other issues. Though the Bush Administration has said the plan should be finalized by July 31, that deadline appears even further out of reach after al-Maliki's recent comments.

While it's heartening to hear serious discussion regarding what needs to change about how the United States starts and ends wars, it's doubtful a public policy center at the University of Virginia [3] can make Congress and the president magically get along. Every president since Nixon has said Congress doesn't have the authority to declare, or stop the declaration of, war. Congress, with all its complaints of being misled into war with Iraq as an example, might be less than eager to be held responsible for future declarations of war.

And just because al-Maliki and the Iraqi parliament don't want to make a long-term deal with the U.S. government doesn't mean American oil companies won't get no-bid, multi-year contracts [4] in that country. Nor does it mean that a McCain presidency wouldn't keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years [5] or more.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags: Analysis [11] war [12] iraq [13] congress [14] war powers [15] withdrawal timetable [16] [17]