It is entitled "Declare War." The first couple paragraphs are just asinine. The planning meme is brought out quickly.
We thought we could pay for the war with Iraqi oil revenues. No. We thought we could pay to rebuild Iraq with oil revenues. Not unreasonable if you assume that we avoid wrecking their infrastructure in the invasion. Who exactly foretold that Saddam had ignored his infrastructure for twenty years? We had to build the damn infrastructure. But nobody said pay for the war with oil revenue! This was not a war for oil and we have not seized Iraq's oil.
And 100,000 US troops to police 5 million Sunnis was not unrealistic. Especially since we thought we could get police and some army to defect. We thought the Sunnis were too demoralized to resist--that's what the anti-war side said, too. Just wait for the victims to overthrow the scared and tired Sunnis. No need to invade. But lots of money and weapons and a strong desire to return to genital mutilating and stealing forged an insurgency all out of proportions to their numbers.
Some key assumptions didn't work out, but lots of assumptions by the anti-war side didn't pan out either, so they shouldn't get too cocky. And we've adjusted and are winning anyway, so give me a break about the planning crap. Perfect planning was just an excuse to delay. Which was just a tactic to stop the war. These people never wanted to plan to win. They wanted to plan to death.
So I wasn't in the best frame of mind to take the rest of their article after this idiocy in the introduction.
So what was there basic point after slamming the Iraq War planning? That we should declare war when we attack:
Returning to the Constitution's text and making it work through legislation requiring joint and deliberate action may be the only way to give the decision to go to war the care it deserves.
First of all, part of their short list of ill-considered military missions was Lebanon in the 1980s under Reagan. So is the the commander-in-chief to be made unable to deploy any troops without a formal embossed declaration of war? Somalia is mentioned, too. Was there to be a declaration of war on hunger or on disease for that one? At what point should the military have stood up to the president and told him, no, this is a fighting mission now, so we must have a declaration of war before going further. At any point during Lebanon or Somalia, the Congress could have exercised oversight to get the troops pulled out. Power of the purse, you know.
As for Iraq, just what do Gelb and Slaughter think this was? Sure looks like a declaration of war on Iraq to me. And I seem to recall that debate prior to the 2002 elections. Is it a debate only if their side wins? And do the authors only consider it a declaration of war if our Secretary of State calls the Iraqi ambassador in to his office and personally slaps him with white gloves across each cheek? And since the authors seem to think a declaration of war would have clarified the issues, shouldn't the fact that we did debate and declare war make their entire article rather pointless?
Like I said, the dumbest thing I've read all month. Though to be fair, the New York Times firewall has admittedly reduced the competition for such an honor.
