That's not micromanaging

One question I have had recently, in light of talks about Congressional power, can Congress rescind a Declaration of War(or a authorization to use force)? I assume the subject has been brought up in legal circles.

Maybe the purse string is the de facto method of rescinding such a declaration. It is going to be curious to see how the Democrats respond as the pressure from the wingers are going to ratchet up. Sense of the Congress resolutions are not going to cut it with them. There is going to be a lot of rancor when the next emergency spending authorization for Iraq comes up.

I don't see any contradiction between the WSJ piece and the Vice President's position. I guess you're reading "specific military operation" as meaning "Iraq", but I don't think they mean it that broadly, looking at the context. For instance, in an earlier paragraph, they say:

But then such analysis probably takes this resolution more seriously than most of the Senators do. If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they'd attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort.

The resolutions of which the WSJ complains, are indeed directing at micromanaging the war. They do not simply call for an end to the war, they call for specific types of troop deployments. I agree with the WSJ (and the Administration) cannot de-fund the deployment of specific units in specific areas. They could pass a resolution prohibiting the expenditure of funds in Iraq generally, which would be tantamount to a repeal of the AUMF, or they could simply cut the budget for the standing army by the amount currently being spent in Iraq, but they can't say "we'll fund the deployment of the 2rd brigade of the 3rd Army, but only if it's deployed in an area within a 10 mile radius of Tikrit, Iraq".

Further, as a political strategy, I don't support making the argument in your last sentence. It holds up for STARTING the war; Congress voted for it, and they could have made the decision not to send troops to begin with. However, once the war starts, I don't support much Congressional meddling in the operations thereof, so I also don't hold them terribly responsible for not acting. It's one thing to vote against the war before it starts, before our troops are in harms way. Once committed to that decision, however, I think it incumbent upon the Congress to provide all necessary funding for the successful completion of operations, even if they no longer politically support the war. Trumpeting their acquiescence in continued funding as political support for the war undermines that principle and increases the political pressure on them to do something I consider unwise, de-funding the war effort. As long as they continue funding it, I'm perfectly happy for them to heap all blame for the consequences on the President.

The Democrats are certainly in a hole of their own making. If Maliki does begin to meet the benchmarks, if Iran or Syria trip the wire, if Abbas and Sinora can get sufficient Sunni backing, Democrats will be falling into deeper waters. Add to that other geopolitical events alarming the West and Democratic candidates will sound foolish chirping hawk. Now they have zero association with any attempt to promote Democracy, support allies, eliminate terrorists, oppose despots or even prevent proliferation. There are many "ifs" above, but certainly Democrats are presently caught politically rejecting Bush's position as "already failed" while pseudo-substituting another plan which begins and ends in greater failure.

"There must be some folks among those opposed to our current path whose oppisition[sic] comes from a genuine sense that we're making the wrong choice but who also appreciate the potential for calamity in the wake of precipitous change in course."

Yes, I'd certainly agree with that. As a war supporter, I'm certainly opposed to withdrawal and/or a defunding. I support the President's plan, as it really the only option right now that won't lead to disaster. I respect the position of those who sincerely oppose the plan, or the war in general, yet acknowledge the reality of a precipitous withdrawal. It's a rock and a hard place.

OTOH, practically the entire Democratic leadership has opposed the surge plan, and effectively called for a "responsible" drawdown of troops. The Dems are torn between the irrational (although in many cases sincere) passions of the base, and the political reality of the consequences. At the end of the day, the war won't be defunded, because they don't want to, and they can't (politically). It's a tough bind.

On a side note, back to the question of Congressional authority, it is basically true that Congress has the power to authorize war (via UMF resolutions, or declarations), but once authorized the President has sole authority to decide how the troops are used, assuming those decisions are lawful. Not that they can't use their debating power to try and change his mind, or speak out. Congress probably cannot defund specific missions, but they can (not that they should, mind you) defund the whole conflict.

I'm thinking about this in terms of the still-unsettled FISA debate. As one who believed that the President overstepped his authority, and needed Congressional approval in order to approve the program, it was my view that Congress had the power to enact FISA, under their explicit authority to makes laws concerning the Armed Forces, and "land and capture." The difference here, as I see it is that Congress has clearly given the President authority via the IWR, and now all decisions regarding how troops are used, are entirely up to the C-in-C, and Congress can only intervene if laws are broken, or to defund the war.

Whew, that was lengthy.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33